5 ms·

You are clearly arguing by appeal to authority. The staff at The University of Pennsylvania Center for Brain Injury and Repair is not infallible. Sometimes bad

You are clearly arguing by appeal to authority. The staff at The University of Pennsylvania Center for Brain Injury and Repair is not infallible. Sometimes bad science is produced by even renowned institutions. This is what the study says about the MRI scans: "MRI neuroimaging was obtained in all 21 patients. Most patients had conventional imaging findings, which were within normal limits, at most showing a few small nonspecific T2-bright foci in the white matter (n =9, 43%). There were 3 patients with multiple T2-bright white matter foci, which were more than expected for age, 2 mild in degree, and 1 with moderate changes. The pattern of conventional imaging findings in these cases was nonspecific with regard to the exposure/insult experienced, and the findings could perhaps be attributed to other preexisting disease processes or risk factors." Translated to English: Only a few minor brain abnormalities were found. Those could all have been the result of prior, more natural causes. The MRI scans themselves aren't available, presumably because of "security" reasons. Personally, I don't see why the crickets theory would be implausible at all. Listening at their sound for just 20 seconds was enough to give me shivers and ringing ears. I'd easily go insane if I had to hear them every night for several months straight.

apcragg 8y ago
It's not arguing by appealing to authority when they are the experts in a field...
- treis 8y ago
  That's exactly what appealing to authority is. They are an authority precisely because they are experts in the field
  - jerf 8y ago
    Yes, but "appeal to actual authority" is a positive description of an argument, not a fallacy. The fallacy is appeal to irrelevant or incorrect authority. This is like the third time in the past couple of months I've had to make this point. Is there someone out there actually telling people that using what authorities say in an argument is always wrong?
    - jMyles 8y ago
      You're missing the point. Presenting a source for a claim is fine, but the naked fact that the author of the source is an expert in the field is not sufficient. You need to also show that their expertise is properly applied. The person with whom you are arguing is making the point that they may have been misdirected by prompting that turns out to have been questionable, and that they acted on this instead of properly applying their expertise. If you're saying something like, "Well that's just not possible! They're an authority on this topic!" ...then yes, you are committing (arguably the quintessential) fallacy of appealing to authority.
      - jerf 8y ago
        It is also a fallacy that every argument must spell out every step. You are allowed to jump over simple things like "doctors qualified to examine these people are qualified to have opinions about them." Is the claim that you fear that they may have been examined by random hobos grabbed off the streets? Who are somehow associated with that group of doctors? By what stretch of the imagination are these not relevant authorities? Demanding to have that spelled out is either demanding to have your intellect insulted, or simply mendacity. I trust those doctors far more than I trust people trying to chop logic on some random programming site.
      - will_brown 8y ago
        >You're missing the point. Presenting a source for a claim is fine, but the naked fact that the author of the source is an expert in the field is not sufficient. Only that’s not what I did. The other party is a neurologist, so the appeal to authority would be the same on either side. UPenn treated the patients (separately doctors from UM went to Cuba and treated the patients) and all have ruled out A psychosomatic cause. Then you have a neurologist who hasn’t seen/treated the patients diagnosing them with psychosomatic mass Hysteria. My point is clearly not an appeal to authority. Anyone who is siding with the neurologist is appealing to authority, I’m saying it’s odd to dismiss the different groups of physicians who actually treated patients and have data.
    - darawk 8y ago
      Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The authority of a source is not absolute proof of a claim. It is evidence, and it is evidence that should probably be given extra weight commensurate with the authority of the source. However, usually when someone says "you're appealing to authority" what they mean is: yes I accept your source, but just because they have authority does not make them beyond reproach, or beyond error, and here is why I think that, even though they are authoritative, they are wrong in this instance.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Gibbon1 8y ago
This reminds me of a orthopedic surgeon that mentioned when MRI's became available docs could see what was causing the patients problem. Later when MRI's got cheaper and more widespread he started getting referrals because of same things on asymptomatic patients. Which meant to him, just because there is an abnormality on the MRI that isn't necessarily the source of patients problem.

apcragg 8y ago

It's not arguing by appealing to authority when they are the experts in a field...

treis 8y ago
That's exactly what appealing to authority is. They are an authority precisely because they are experts in the field
- jerf 8y ago
  Yes, but "appeal to actual authority" is a positive description of an argument, not a fallacy. The fallacy is appeal to irrelevant or incorrect authority. This is like the third time in the past couple of months I've had to make this point. Is there someone out there actually telling people that using what authorities say in an argument is always wrong?
  - jMyles 8y ago
    You're missing the point. Presenting a source for a claim is fine, but the naked fact that the author of the source is an expert in the field is not sufficient. You need to also show that their expertise is properly applied. The person with whom you are arguing is making the point that they may have been misdirected by prompting that turns out to have been questionable, and that they acted on this instead of properly applying their expertise. If you're saying something like, "Well that's just not possible! They're an authority on this topic!" ...then yes, you are committing (arguably the quintessential) fallacy of appealing to authority.
    - jerf 8y ago
      It is also a fallacy that every argument must spell out every step. You are allowed to jump over simple things like "doctors qualified to examine these people are qualified to have opinions about them." Is the claim that you fear that they may have been examined by random hobos grabbed off the streets? Who are somehow associated with that group of doctors? By what stretch of the imagination are these not relevant authorities? Demanding to have that spelled out is either demanding to have your intellect insulted, or simply mendacity. I trust those doctors far more than I trust people trying to chop logic on some random programming site.
    - will_brown 8y ago
      >You're missing the point. Presenting a source for a claim is fine, but the naked fact that the author of the source is an expert in the field is not sufficient. Only that’s not what I did. The other party is a neurologist, so the appeal to authority would be the same on either side. UPenn treated the patients (separately doctors from UM went to Cuba and treated the patients) and all have ruled out A psychosomatic cause. Then you have a neurologist who hasn’t seen/treated the patients diagnosing them with psychosomatic mass Hysteria. My point is clearly not an appeal to authority. Anyone who is siding with the neurologist is appealing to authority, I’m saying it’s odd to dismiss the different groups of physicians who actually treated patients and have data.
  - darawk 8y ago
    Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The authority of a source is not absolute proof of a claim. It is evidence, and it is evidence that should probably be given extra weight commensurate with the authority of the source. However, usually when someone says "you're appealing to authority" what they mean is: yes I accept your source, but just because they have authority does not make them beyond reproach, or beyond error, and here is why I think that, even though they are authoritative, they are wrong in this instance.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Gibbon1 8y ago

This reminds me of a orthopedic surgeon that mentioned when MRI's became available docs could see what was causing the patients problem. Later when MRI's got cheaper and more widespread he started getting referrals because of same things on asymptomatic patients. Which meant to him, just because there is an abnormality on the MRI that isn't necessarily the source of patients problem.