3 ms·

That's a fallacious argument, you're just appealing to authority.

• Schiphol 6y ago
  One needs to trade off whatever risk there is of fallacious reasoning based on authority with the epistemic dangers of not having the appropriate awareness of, and respect for expertise.
  • jedimind 6y ago
    Doubling down on appeal to authority, enhanced with pseudo intellectual drivel, won't help your case, engage with his questions and let's have a proper discussion instead.
    • Schiphol 6y ago
      I'd also advise you not to put such faith on the informal fallacies. They are not as useful as you seem to think.
  • mistermann 6y ago
    It may be useful to do this, but it is not necessary. Two downfalls of this approach that I see: 1. It increases the likelihood of believing things to be true, that are not actually known to be true 2. Since these things are not known to be true, it can increase societal polarization, because some others are able to see and elaborate that it is actually not known, and this can lead to "warring" tribes, who seem to often let isolated disagreements bleed into their behavior on unrelated matters, such as how they perceive others, or how they vote at the ballot box. A lot of people seem concerned about the results of #2, but very few people seem to be interested (to put it nicely) in the underlying cause(s). Conclusions like "It is not conclusively known one way or the other...but all things considered, <x> seems like the most reasonable estimate until we receive more data" are not only possible, but superior, in my opinion.