4 ms·

I down-voted you, and here's why: 1. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. However, authority does serve a purpose. People will take Harvard astronomers

• airstrike 8y ago
  > 1. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. However, authority does serve a purpose. People will take Harvard astronomers more seriously than backyard astronomy enthusiasts. Therefore his credentials are relevant. You're basically saying "appeal to authority is a logical fallacy but it's an OK fallacy" We should judge his opinion on the validity of his claims, not on the credentials he carries. If the backyard astronomer makes a more cogent argument, we should prefer that over the Harvard astronomers. Ideas have merits, credentials don't. Carl Sagan famously said One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.
  • mfoy_ 8y ago
    Your entire comment is off-topic. You ignored points #2 and #3 and misrepresented #1. That's a classic straw-man fallacy. I did not say "it's an OK fallacy", so do not put those words into my mouth. I said authority serves a purpose. It can serve as a signal, used to filter out noise. His arguments must, of course, stand on their own. If you actually read the article, you'll find he makes some good arguments. In fact, neither this headline nor this article even make the "appeal to authority" fallacy in the first place. So why harp on it?
    • airstrike 8y ago
      > Your entire comment is off-topic. How so? I'm literally talking about the article. > You ignored points #2 and #3 and misrepresented #1. Point #2 wasn't worth addressing, but I'll do it just in case. > 2. No one, at any point, makes an argument that you should believe anything he claims on his credentials alone. Nor did I say anyone made that argument. Irrelevant. > 3. In this world of click-bait headlines and ad-revenue-driven content, this doesn't even qualify as close to click-bait. It doesn't even say UFO, or alien, or artifact, or anything controversial. The title of the article is literally what it is. It is a Harvard astronomers thoughts on an object in space. Nor did I say the article was clickbait. I mere pointed to the fact that the choice of words for the headline implies appeal to authority, though I did not say that in so many words. Finally, I did not misinterpret #1. Let's revisit what you said > 1. (...) People will take Harvard astronomers more seriously than backyard astronomy enthusiasts. Therefore his credentials are relevant. Let's break this down: (A) People will take Harvard astronomers more seriously than backyard astronomy enthusiasts. This is precisely stating that people are subject to appeal to authority. You are saying someone's credentials confers their opinion with greater weight than if such opinion was anonymous, so you are agreeing with my original point. But let's for a moment ignore the fact that we wish (A) wasn't true. (B) Therefore his credentials are relevant. It seems like you were trying to imply that because (A) is true, then (B) must true. Your argument is tantamount to: If people believe in the value of credentials, then credentials are valuable. In a more generic sense, if people believe in X to be valuable, then X must be valuable. That's only true if you assume X has no inherent value but only that value which others confer to it. I would disagree with that assumption. > So why harp on it? I'm harping because the headline perpetuates the fallacy that credentials mean something. Maybe they do in practice as you said it yourself, but that's entirely besides the point. I'm arguing they shouldn't. I'm also harping because it's a free "country".