5 ms·

So Vincent wasn't wrong, because he was just parroting the experts.. but Vincent is the expert? Am I understanding the logic correctly?

cinntaile 5y ago
No you're not understanding the logic correctly. The GP was wondering why he has to trust a YouTuber to accurately parrot a research article and I point out that he's not a random YouTuber. Of course he can still be wrong?
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, no? Because that's exactly what the claim is. I understand that it makes him less likely to misunderstand the research (probably) but its not a guarantee and is naive to depend on that fact.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    Where is the appeal to authority? I made no such claim and have explained what I meant in considerable detail? I have explicitly mentioned several times that he can be wrong. Appeal to authority means authority isn't wrong because authority.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      lozenge stated: "So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings?" To which you replied: "Vincent Racaniello is a professor of virology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello" This is an appeal to the authority of Vincent's position as a professor
      - cinntaile 5y ago
        On its own you can interpret it like that, but this is a bit unfair. I have already explained what I meant with my comment, I even have a comment that predates the one you cite where I explicitly claim that he can be wrong... My point was not to say that he's right because he's a professor. It was to clarify that he's not a random YouTuber.
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        It seems silly, to me at least, to take external statements to this given thread and apply them as if they were said here. I took your comment at face value, all seven words and the URL. That was the entire statement, there was no mention of "he's an expert but he could be wrong" When asked for evidence, the ONLY evidence that you provided, was that he IS an expert. Full stop.
        cinntaile 5y ago
        At the time the message tree was vastly different. The messages were next to each other. It looked like this: GP /\ Comment. My 2nd reply with link. / My first reply where I said he could be wrong.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy, although some people argue that it is. Put more correctly: experts know better, but aren't perfect. For example, were I to cite Peter Duesberg, a well known virologist, about HIV transmission, I'd be wrong, even though he's an expert virologist. I assign higher priors to subject matter experts until I have reason to believe otherwise.
    - naasking 5y ago
      > Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy, although some people argue that it is. I mean, it is a logical fallacy. An expert isn't right only because he's an expert, he's right only when the evidence supports his position. Do all experts only make conclusions based on evidence, or do other beliefs factor in? I think the answer is clear, hence the fallacy.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        No, it's not a logical fallacy. Nor would the fact that experts don't make conclusions purely on evidence mean their citing their statements fallacious. For any given scientific question, select two populations. One populaton is enriched in subject matter experts, while the other is selected at random. Have them make blind predictions about scientific facts. It is not fallacious to sdtate that the first group's predictions will have a higher posterior probability.
        naasking 5y ago
        You really need to look up what "logic fallacy" means. Any invalid logical inference is a fallacy. An appeal to authority is not a valid logical inference because an authority's claim is not necessarily true; the definition of a valid inference rule is if it's result is necessarily true if it's antecedents are true. Therefore an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, by definition.
        spiderice 5y ago
        I've actually studied a lot about logical fallacies, and so I can tell you with certainty that appeal to authority is, indeed, a logical fallacy. Source: Myself, an authority Joking aside, you are just misrepresenting what the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is. An "appeal to authority" is when one argues that "X is correct because <insert some expert> said it was". In really, X is either correct or incorrect, regardless of what any authority has said about it. So yes, appeal to authority is absolutely a logical fallacy. Changing the definition of those words and then arguing that your definition isn't a fallacy is called a fallacy of equivocation. And yes, a fallacy of equivocation is also a logical fallacy.

cinntaile 5y ago

No you're not understanding the logic correctly. The GP was wondering why he has to trust a YouTuber to accurately parrot a research article and I point out that he's not a random YouTuber. Of course he can still be wrong?

netizen-936824 5y ago
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, no? Because that's exactly what the claim is. I understand that it makes him less likely to misunderstand the research (probably) but its not a guarantee and is naive to depend on that fact.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  Where is the appeal to authority? I made no such claim and have explained what I meant in considerable detail? I have explicitly mentioned several times that he can be wrong. Appeal to authority means authority isn't wrong because authority.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    lozenge stated: "So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings?" To which you replied: "Vincent Racaniello is a professor of virology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello" This is an appeal to the authority of Vincent's position as a professor
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      On its own you can interpret it like that, but this is a bit unfair. I have already explained what I meant with my comment, I even have a comment that predates the one you cite where I explicitly claim that he can be wrong... My point was not to say that he's right because he's a professor. It was to clarify that he's not a random YouTuber.
      - netizen-936824 5y ago
        It seems silly, to me at least, to take external statements to this given thread and apply them as if they were said here. I took your comment at face value, all seven words and the URL. That was the entire statement, there was no mention of "he's an expert but he could be wrong" When asked for evidence, the ONLY evidence that you provided, was that he IS an expert. Full stop.
        cinntaile 5y ago
        At the time the message tree was vastly different. The messages were next to each other. It looked like this: GP /\ Comment. My 2nd reply with link. / My first reply where I said he could be wrong.
- dekhn 5y ago
  Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy, although some people argue that it is. Put more correctly: experts know better, but aren't perfect. For example, were I to cite Peter Duesberg, a well known virologist, about HIV transmission, I'd be wrong, even though he's an expert virologist. I assign higher priors to subject matter experts until I have reason to believe otherwise.
  - naasking 5y ago
    > Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy, although some people argue that it is. I mean, it is a logical fallacy. An expert isn't right only because he's an expert, he's right only when the evidence supports his position. Do all experts only make conclusions based on evidence, or do other beliefs factor in? I think the answer is clear, hence the fallacy.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      No, it's not a logical fallacy. Nor would the fact that experts don't make conclusions purely on evidence mean their citing their statements fallacious. For any given scientific question, select two populations. One populaton is enriched in subject matter experts, while the other is selected at random. Have them make blind predictions about scientific facts. It is not fallacious to sdtate that the first group's predictions will have a higher posterior probability.
      - naasking 5y ago
        You really need to look up what "logic fallacy" means. Any invalid logical inference is a fallacy. An appeal to authority is not a valid logical inference because an authority's claim is not necessarily true; the definition of a valid inference rule is if it's result is necessarily true if it's antecedents are true. Therefore an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, by definition.
      - spiderice 5y ago
        I've actually studied a lot about logical fallacies, and so I can tell you with certainty that appeal to authority is, indeed, a logical fallacy. Source: Myself, an authority Joking aside, you are just misrepresenting what the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is. An "appeal to authority" is when one argues that "X is correct because <insert some expert> said it was". In really, X is either correct or incorrect, regardless of what any authority has said about it. So yes, appeal to authority is absolutely a logical fallacy. Changing the definition of those words and then arguing that your definition isn't a fallacy is called a fallacy of equivocation. And yes, a fallacy of equivocation is also a logical fallacy.