3 ms·

It's generally unreasonable to expect that people be able to directly fact check or debunk every argument or thesis put forward be others. We have too little ti

by astine 8y ago

It's generally unreasonable to expect that people be able to directly fact check or debunk every argument or thesis put forward be others. We have too little time and most of us have too little expertise in fields separate than our own. As a result we have to rely on authority to help us judge whether arguments make sense. An argument from authority is not by itself considered a logical fallacy, only an argument from invalid authority. With that being said, who happens to be saying something changes how one approaches a discussion. If the author of this paper happened to be a random crank, it would not mean that she was wrong, but being unable to directly judge her work for myself (not being an entomologist) I would not be able to take her word for it and would want to see how the entomological community responded to her work. If instead she was a widely respected entomologist I would be inclined to take her word for it until such time that this work was discredited by the entomological community. If I were an expert in her field, I would be able to judge her myself, but not being an expert, I must instead rely on the judgment of experts.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
I don't disagree that these socially derived shortcuts can often transfer confidence of the person into confidence in their work. However the reason we look for these kinds of reasoning chains is to determine what heuristics and biases are being used and introduced, and how we can minimize those that are irrelevant or confusing. In cases like you describe, where someone can't speak to the validity of the methods of the studies, the prudent thing would be to refrain completely from weighing in as all it would do is add some kind of irrelevant or confusing information. I'm unclear what value such information adds when trying to evaluate the merits of the work itself.
- rstuart4133 8y ago
  > In cases like you describe, where someone can't speak to the validity of the methods of the studies, the prudent thing would be to refrain completely from weighing in as all it would do is add some kind of irrelevant or confusing information. Anyone who uses http://www.sourcewatch.org/ http://www.sourcewatch.org/ or prefers Britebart over MSN or visa versa is probably going to disagree. They evidently consider the source of information a useful indicator of its quality. Speak for myself I aggressively filter the Internet fire hose using all sorts of techniques that don't involve considering the substance of the story at all. I'll look at stories with good HN scores, I'll pause to see listen what Leonard Susskind has to say about something he admits he does not know a lot about long before I'll listen to anti-vaxer's argument about something they say they some expertise. Past performance matters, as does the opinions of others who think like me. And I've also done exactly what this person did - not here but on theconversation. It was on an article about the benefits of coal, which like all articles on theconversation comes with a side bar listing affiliations and interests the author has that might influence their opinion. (Apparently the theconversation also thinks things outside of what is said in the article can be used to judge its validity.) In that case the said bar said the author had no notable affiliations. I pointed out he was occupying a chair paid for the Koch brothers.
iceninenines 8y ago
That's an appeal to laziness fallacy, e.g., bullshit. If you're unable or unwilling to think for yourself, you depend on, and will be manipulated by, others. Maybe you should make time or shouldn't be reading such content or commenting if you insist on remaining ignorant?

by astine 8y ago

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

I don't disagree that these socially derived shortcuts can often transfer confidence of the person into confidence in their work. However the reason we look for these kinds of reasoning chains is to determine what heuristics and biases are being used and introduced, and how we can minimize those that are irrelevant or confusing. In cases like you describe, where someone can't speak to the validity of the methods of the studies, the prudent thing would be to refrain completely from weighing in as all it would do is add some kind of irrelevant or confusing information. I'm unclear what value such information adds when trying to evaluate the merits of the work itself.

rstuart4133 8y ago
> In cases like you describe, where someone can't speak to the validity of the methods of the studies, the prudent thing would be to refrain completely from weighing in as all it would do is add some kind of irrelevant or confusing information. Anyone who uses http://www.sourcewatch.org/ http://www.sourcewatch.org/ or prefers Britebart over MSN or visa versa is probably going to disagree. They evidently consider the source of information a useful indicator of its quality. Speak for myself I aggressively filter the Internet fire hose using all sorts of techniques that don't involve considering the substance of the story at all. I'll look at stories with good HN scores, I'll pause to see listen what Leonard Susskind has to say about something he admits he does not know a lot about long before I'll listen to anti-vaxer's argument about something they say they some expertise. Past performance matters, as does the opinions of others who think like me. And I've also done exactly what this person did - not here but on theconversation. It was on an article about the benefits of coal, which like all articles on theconversation comes with a side bar listing affiliations and interests the author has that might influence their opinion. (Apparently the theconversation also thinks things outside of what is said in the article can be used to judge its validity.) In that case the said bar said the author had no notable affiliations. I pointed out he was occupying a chair paid for the Koch brothers.

iceninenines 8y ago

That's an appeal to laziness fallacy, e.g., bullshit. If you're unable or unwilling to think for yourself, you depend on, and will be manipulated by, others. Maybe you should make time or shouldn't be reading such content or commenting if you insist on remaining ignorant?