4 ms·
More 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 recogni
by mattkrause 6y ago
More 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.