3 ms·
A fact is true (or not) regardless of the messenger. This credo is essentially an appeal to authority rather than addressing the assertion itself.
by tux1968 5y ago
A fact is true (or not) regardless of the messenger. This credo is essentially an appeal to authority rather than addressing the assertion itself.
- mistermann 5y agoIf it was posed as an assertion rather than an exploratory question I'd agree.
- torstenvl 5y agoWhat have you experienced in your life that makes you think analysis of errors in logic applies to analysis of errors in establishing premises? GP isn't appealing to authority, he's suggesting a way to get to the heart of epistemological differences.
- greenyoda 5y ago> This credo is essentially an appeal to authority Strange, I read it as exactly the opposite. Many times, people who are considered authorities in something, such as academics, have little or no real world experience in the matters that they're giving advice on. For example, why should a business owner take advice from an economist, who has never run a business (or even worked outside of academia), on how to run a business? By asking "what have you experienced that makes you believe what you do?", we can at least establish if someone really knows something or is just an "authority". Similarly, if I see a book about software development, I'd like to know what significant software the author has delivered. If their expertise is mostly in writing books and making YouTube videos, I don't want to waste my time reading their advice. Ironically, the author of this article seems to work for a "wealth management group", so we should ask what experience they have that would make them a credible source of advice in psychology or brain function. They write nothing about their own actual experience, only quoting various authorities.