4 ms·

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

by 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.

jay_kyburz 8y ago
Yes, but I think what is being argued above is "my authority is more qualified than your authority"
- darawk 8y ago
  I don't think that's what's being said at all. He makes a specific set of points about why this authority is wrong here, points that the other commenter hasn't tried to address, except by reasserting the authority of the source. That's why it's an appeal to authority.
  - jay_kyburz 8y ago
    I don't see any specific points where bjourne points out why the UPenn Doctors are wrong. He just points out that they are not infallible and says they may have been primed. As you said, and I very much agree with "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" I believe what bjourne is saying is that he believed the crickets story because he places more weight with the authority pushing that story. will_brown is saying he things UPenn doctors have more authority. quick edit: What I am trying to say is that bjourne should not just blow off the UPenn authority, but instead justify his own authority is better.
    - darawk 8y ago
      Ya I think that's a reasonable take. I think we don't really disagree :)
    - will_brown 8y ago
      >will_brown is saying he things UPenn doctors have more authority. Not at all. I am saying UPenn doctors examined and treated the patients. Not mentioned at all is a UM doctor also went to Cuba and treated the patients. All ruled out psychosomatic mass hysteria. Then an HN poster called that diagnosis/published study flawed and linked an article with a neurologist quoted as saying the UPenn diagnosis is wrong and it is psychosomatic mass hysteria. My point has nothing to do with authority, I just don’t understand how anyone can dismiss the group(s) that actually examined and treated the patients based on some quotes from a neurologist in a newspaper article that diagnosis the patients without having examined/treated them. I’ll admit in this context authority is important, but Both sides have authorities, and its those people aiding with the neurologist that are appealing to authority, because what other reason is there to side with the one doctor who hasn’t seen the patients, while all treating physicians ruled out the mass hysteria diagnosis?

by darawk 8y ago

jay_kyburz 8y ago

Yes, but I think what is being argued above is "my authority is more qualified than your authority"

darawk 8y ago
I don't think that's what's being said at all. He makes a specific set of points about why this authority is wrong here, points that the other commenter hasn't tried to address, except by reasserting the authority of the source. That's why it's an appeal to authority.
- jay_kyburz 8y ago
  I don't see any specific points where bjourne points out why the UPenn Doctors are wrong. He just points out that they are not infallible and says they may have been primed. As you said, and I very much agree with "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" I believe what bjourne is saying is that he believed the crickets story because he places more weight with the authority pushing that story. will_brown is saying he things UPenn doctors have more authority. quick edit: What I am trying to say is that bjourne should not just blow off the UPenn authority, but instead justify his own authority is better.
  - darawk 8y ago
    Ya I think that's a reasonable take. I think we don't really disagree :)
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >will_brown is saying he things UPenn doctors have more authority. Not at all. I am saying UPenn doctors examined and treated the patients. Not mentioned at all is a UM doctor also went to Cuba and treated the patients. All ruled out psychosomatic mass hysteria. Then an HN poster called that diagnosis/published study flawed and linked an article with a neurologist quoted as saying the UPenn diagnosis is wrong and it is psychosomatic mass hysteria. My point has nothing to do with authority, I just don’t understand how anyone can dismiss the group(s) that actually examined and treated the patients based on some quotes from a neurologist in a newspaper article that diagnosis the patients without having examined/treated them. I’ll admit in this context authority is important, but Both sides have authorities, and its those people aiding with the neurologist that are appealing to authority, because what other reason is there to side with the one doctor who hasn’t seen the patients, while all treating physicians ruled out the mass hysteria diagnosis?