3 ms·

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

by 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.

by jMyles 8y ago

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.