4 ms·
From the Wikipedia link you posted: > She is one of the primary authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a widely-discredited paper[15] which advocated a f
by evan_ 6y ago
From the Wikipedia link you posted:
> She is one of the primary authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a widely-discredited paper[15] which advocated a focused response to the COVID-19 pandemic based on levels of individual risk.[16][17] The World Health Organization, as well as other numerous academic and public-health bodies, have stated that the strategy proposed by the Declaration is dangerous, unethical, and lacks a sound scientific basis.
Cool!
- timr 6y agoAppeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
- mattkrause 6y agoMore like “defeasible”. It’s not deductively valid in the same way that modus tollens is, but it is a often a good heuristic: the authority wouldn’t be recognized as such if they weren’t often correct in their area of expertise. Thus, it’s fine to find an appeal “rationally compelling” as long as you bear in mind that the authority is also not infallible.
- timr 6y agoThe reputation of an authority is not a rebuttal to an argument. It's simply a lazy way of of avoiding the argument by substituting the burden of proof to the identity of the authority.
- mattkrause 6y agoNot in a formal, deductive way but it’s not obviously wrong to initially give an authority a bit of credence. In this particular case, you brought up Bhattacharya‘s credentials. If another plausible expert disagrees with him, we’re at worst back to where we started; the fact that there’s a consensus he’s wrong, rather than just two dueling authorities, pushes back even harder.
- evan_ 6y ago...but that’s what you’re doing?
- DanBC 6y agoIt's not an appeal to authority. It's pointing out that the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus is against this trio.