3 ms·

Your reasoning is solid, but Gruber has repeated the 960x480 resolution a few times in reporting on the future of the iPhone, and typically when he gets that sp

by tvon 17y ago

Your reasoning is solid, but Gruber has repeated the 960x480 resolution a few times in reporting on the future of the iPhone, and typically when he gets that specific about something it's because he knows.

jodrellblank 17y ago
Your reasoning, however, isn't very solid. "It's right because he wouldn't say it if it wasn't right"; it's circular and possibly an appeal to authority, and doesn't respond to the issue addressed. The parent post is not questioning whether Gruber believes his sources, but arguing that the information seems implausible. Your reply is that Gruber believes his sources are correct - yes he might state it because he believes it, but it could be wrong.
- foldr 17y ago
  >it's circular and possibly an appeal to authority, It might be an appeal to authority, but there isn't any circularity. If you're going to play fallacy bingo, at least get it right...
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    Gruber is right. His specific answer comes from his correct knowledge. I know he is correct because he's specific. It isn't circular, is it? I'm mixing G's belief in his correctness and this poster's belief in G's correctness.
    - foldr 17y ago
      >Gruber is right. His specific answer comes from his correct knowledge. I know he is correct because he's specific. Erm, that's a very odd way of putting it. I think the OP was just saying "Gruber's specific claims have been reliable in the past, and hence are quite likely to be correct now." That is perfectly reasonable and it's not circular. (It is, of course, an inductive form of appeal to authority, but there is nothing wrong with that.)
      - jodrellblank 17y ago
        As I first read it, I thought "he's right because he's specific and he's specific because he's right", which would be circular; but while the he's all refer to Gruber, the rights are distinct. He thinks he is right therefore he is specific, because he is specific I think he is right. That's what I was trying to say in my awkward earlier post. That does seem appealing to authority - thinking Gruber is right because of what he says and how he says it, rather than considering why he says it. Actually, what riled me more was the interpretation "He thinks he is right therefore he is specific, because he is specific I think he thinks he is right." Which conveys absolutely no information and adds nothing to the discussion, just repeating that G thinks he is right, which is a given, and was still getting upvotes; so I tried to attack the post to feel better, banking on pedanticism being good for a few karma points around here anyway. :/
- tvon 17y ago
  What are you, a lawyer?
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    What are you, insinuating?

by tvon 17y ago

jodrellblank 17y ago

Your reasoning, however, isn't very solid. "It's right because he wouldn't say it if it wasn't right"; it's circular and possibly an appeal to authority, and doesn't respond to the issue addressed. The parent post is not questioning whether Gruber believes his sources, but arguing that the information seems implausible. Your reply is that Gruber believes his sources are correct - yes he might state it because he believes it, but it could be wrong.

foldr 17y ago
>it's circular and possibly an appeal to authority, It might be an appeal to authority, but there isn't any circularity. If you're going to play fallacy bingo, at least get it right...
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  Gruber is right. His specific answer comes from his correct knowledge. I know he is correct because he's specific. It isn't circular, is it? I'm mixing G's belief in his correctness and this poster's belief in G's correctness.
  - foldr 17y ago
    >Gruber is right. His specific answer comes from his correct knowledge. I know he is correct because he's specific. Erm, that's a very odd way of putting it. I think the OP was just saying "Gruber's specific claims have been reliable in the past, and hence are quite likely to be correct now." That is perfectly reasonable and it's not circular. (It is, of course, an inductive form of appeal to authority, but there is nothing wrong with that.)
    - jodrellblank 17y ago
      As I first read it, I thought "he's right because he's specific and he's specific because he's right", which would be circular; but while the he's all refer to Gruber, the rights are distinct. He thinks he is right therefore he is specific, because he is specific I think he is right. That's what I was trying to say in my awkward earlier post. That does seem appealing to authority - thinking Gruber is right because of what he says and how he says it, rather than considering why he says it. Actually, what riled me more was the interpretation "He thinks he is right therefore he is specific, because he is specific I think he thinks he is right." Which conveys absolutely no information and adds nothing to the discussion, just repeating that G thinks he is right, which is a given, and was still getting upvotes; so I tried to attack the post to feel better, banking on pedanticism being good for a few karma points around here anyway. :/
tvon 17y ago
What are you, a lawyer?
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  What are you, insinuating?