4 ms·

> i think the article is a bit too quick to proclaim that its things like "technology", "emailing" and things that have lead to a lack of empathy in the modern

> i think the article is a bit too quick to proclaim that its things like "technology", "emailing" and things that have lead to a lack of empathy in the modern workplace No, it's actually quoting "Sherry Turkle, director of the Initiative on Technology and Self at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology", and maybe you're a bit too quick to dismiss the amount of thought she put into such claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Turkle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherry_Turkle

witty_username 10y ago
This is irrelevant and an appeal to authority.
- forgetfullest 10y ago
  It's exactly relevant to the claim that "the article" is "quick to proclaim" anything. The article is quoting the claim of someone who isn't rash at all.
  - _archon_ 10y ago
    We don't know that. The article didn't back up these quotations with reasoning, it just assumed that they were fact. This is pretty much the definition of an appeal to authority. A superior article would lay out how and why such disconnects exist; I have no reason to believe they do other than one person I'm never going to meet having said so.
- ethbro 10y ago
  Argument to authority and argument to expertise are two different things.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No, an appeal to authority is when you say that because someone is an authority in one area, they should be listened to in another. In this case, this is her focus of study. I'm sorry if you think it's fallacious, but I'm gonna give the person who has studied the subject a little more weight than some rando on the internet.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > No, an appeal to authority is when you say that because someone is an authority in one area, they should be listened to in another. It's really not.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      You're not only mis-using appeal to authority, but you're now using argumentum ad nauseum to boot. You're wrong, and you're not advancing the discussion. It also helps to keep in mind the distinction between logical fallacies, used in a strict logical sense, and strength of argument. The case here is one of "what is the evidence to support a belief?", not "are the argument's predicates and conclusions logically valid in a strict sense?". The original argument was that the article was "too quick to proclaim". The rejoinder was that this wasn't the article's conclusion, but that of an expert on the subject. The discussion has been advanced, the initial claim invalidated, and additional relevant information provided. To reject the conclusions of the article simply because of an appeal to authority, without also presenting a stronger claim that the authority is invalid, doesn't advance the argument. To persist in that is tiresome. A key question is whether or not the authority in question is credible. I've engaged in any number of discussions where showing credibility is at issue, and showing a particular source's good faith or record of admitting error (or not relitigating falsehoods) is crucial to qualifying or impeaching a witness. Again, you've not done this. Paul Graham's "How to Disagree" is popular around here for various reasons. The derived graphic on hierarchy of disagreement is also strongly recommended. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarc... You might also want to catch up on your logical fallacies and how/when they're appropriate or not. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority... Note that key to these is the question of expertise.

witty_username 10y ago

This is irrelevant and an appeal to authority.

forgetfullest 10y ago
It's exactly relevant to the claim that "the article" is "quick to proclaim" anything. The article is quoting the claim of someone who isn't rash at all.
- _archon_ 10y ago
  We don't know that. The article didn't back up these quotations with reasoning, it just assumed that they were fact. This is pretty much the definition of an appeal to authority. A superior article would lay out how and why such disconnects exist; I have no reason to believe they do other than one person I'm never going to meet having said so.
ethbro 10y ago
Argument to authority and argument to expertise are two different things.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
st3v3r 10y ago
No, an appeal to authority is when you say that because someone is an authority in one area, they should be listened to in another. In this case, this is her focus of study. I'm sorry if you think it's fallacious, but I'm gonna give the person who has studied the subject a little more weight than some rando on the internet.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > No, an appeal to authority is when you say that because someone is an authority in one area, they should be listened to in another. It's really not.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    You're not only mis-using appeal to authority, but you're now using argumentum ad nauseum to boot. You're wrong, and you're not advancing the discussion. It also helps to keep in mind the distinction between logical fallacies, used in a strict logical sense, and strength of argument. The case here is one of "what is the evidence to support a belief?", not "are the argument's predicates and conclusions logically valid in a strict sense?". The original argument was that the article was "too quick to proclaim". The rejoinder was that this wasn't the article's conclusion, but that of an expert on the subject. The discussion has been advanced, the initial claim invalidated, and additional relevant information provided. To reject the conclusions of the article simply because of an appeal to authority, without also presenting a stronger claim that the authority is invalid, doesn't advance the argument. To persist in that is tiresome. A key question is whether or not the authority in question is credible. I've engaged in any number of discussions where showing credibility is at issue, and showing a particular source's good faith or record of admitting error (or not relitigating falsehoods) is crucial to qualifying or impeaching a witness. Again, you've not done this. Paul Graham's "How to Disagree" is popular around here for various reasons. The derived graphic on hierarchy of disagreement is also strongly recommended. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarc... You might also want to catch up on your logical fallacies and how/when they're appropriate or not. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority... Note that key to these is the question of expertise.