4 ms·
> "...from a real doctor." you're arguing from authority. it may make sense to trust the expertise of this doctor in this instance, because of her demonstrated
by clairity 6y ago
> "...from a real doctor."
you're arguing from authority. it may make sense to trust the expertise of this doctor in this instance, because of her demonstrated reasonableness and the relevant information she brings to bear, but her status as an authority has little bearing on whether you should believe her or not. her expertise and specialization confer additional, unique data in making her reasoning, but by themselves are no shield from error, bias, fallacy, and just plain lack of perspective.
for the record, i do find her reasoning compelling, but not because she's a real doctor. but as with any single data point, it's premature to go all-in on belief (or denial) and behavior change.
- fossuser 6y agoI agree more than disagree. It's the reasonableness and information in an area filled with tons of pseudo-scientific nonsense that's refreshing, 'real doctor' was a colloquialism, but it's not the authority itself that I find important (though it is a point in favor of the information being likely more accurate). Having an MD doesn't make you instantly right, but it does mean you have some background/training that a lay person doesn't. It has some bearing on likeliness of claims being true.