4 ms·

This informal fallacy is generally unrecognized. Having a Wikipedia article doesn't make it an accepted norm. What you're doing is called the appeal to authorit

by pb7 7y ago

This informal fallacy is generally unrecognized. Having a Wikipedia article doesn't make it an accepted norm. What you're doing is called the appeal to authority fallacy which is generally recognized.

wizzwizz4 7y ago
Both of you are wrong. Appealing to fallacies doesn't make a good argument, but neither does pointing that out knock down an argument. That'd be the “fallacy fallacy”. Appealing to "accepted norms" is another case of appealing to authority – except a less verifiable authority, in that case. Ironically, I am currently listing fallacies, which itself does not a good argument make – so I will add to it that that's not what “informal” means; the adjective is merely specifying that it is not a logical flaw, but instead falls into a broader category (such as implying stronger evidence than exists, or something). Your original argument is flawed, however; it neglects that organisations cannot increase the talent available to ethical companies and decrease the talent available to unethical ones by participating in the job market, and invokes an argument similar to the tu quoque fallacy by implying that Mozilla's actions have any bearing on how good its advice is. Merely calling out that you used a fallacy (and misidentified at that!) is not a sufficient counterargument alone.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Did you mean pb7, the poster you responded to, when you wrote "Your original argument"?
  - wizzwizz4 7y ago
    Yes.
- pb7 7y ago
  Don't know where to begin with this one. Yes, "informal" isn't "logical", hence the italics specifying as much. No, my response wasn't a counterargument because what I was responding to wasn't an argument to begin with. There was nothing to defend because nothing of substance was produced. No, my original argument is not flawed because your counterargument has nothing to do with the concept we've been discussing in this sub-thread. Allow me to summarize: Mozilla sucks and yes, students should consider ethics in their job search which means they should probably not work for Mozilla.
  - wizzwizz4 7y ago
    You are correct in that there are no logical flaws with that argument. I misinterpreted what you were saying; sorry.

by pb7 7y ago

wizzwizz4 7y ago

Both of you are wrong. Appealing to fallacies doesn't make a good argument, but neither does pointing that out knock down an argument. That'd be the “fallacy fallacy”. Appealing to "accepted norms" is another case of appealing to authority – except a less verifiable authority, in that case. Ironically, I am currently listing fallacies, which itself does not a good argument make – so I will add to it that that's not what “informal” means; the adjective is merely specifying that it is not a logical flaw, but instead falls into a broader category (such as implying stronger evidence than exists, or something). Your original argument is flawed, however; it neglects that organisations cannot increase the talent available to ethical companies and decrease the talent available to unethical ones by participating in the job market, and invokes an argument similar to the tu quoque fallacy by implying that Mozilla's actions have any bearing on how good its advice is. Merely calling out that you used a fallacy (and misidentified at that!) is not a sufficient counterargument alone.

jshevek 7y ago
Did you mean pb7, the poster you responded to, when you wrote "Your original argument"?
- wizzwizz4 7y ago
  Yes.
pb7 7y ago
Don't know where to begin with this one. Yes, "informal" isn't "logical", hence the italics specifying as much. No, my response wasn't a counterargument because what I was responding to wasn't an argument to begin with. There was nothing to defend because nothing of substance was produced. No, my original argument is not flawed because your counterargument has nothing to do with the concept we've been discussing in this sub-thread. Allow me to summarize: Mozilla sucks and yes, students should consider ethics in their job search which means they should probably not work for Mozilla.
- wizzwizz4 7y ago
  You are correct in that there are no logical flaws with that argument. I misinterpreted what you were saying; sorry.