3 ms·

I actually love flat earthers BECAUSE it forces me to actually think about how "I Know" the world is round. I bet a majority of people who are anti-flat earthe

I actually love flat earthers BECAUSE it forces me to actually think about how "I Know" the world is round. I bet a majority of people who are anti-flat earthers could not actually "prove" the earth is round without immediately appealing to authority. I've talked to flat earthers, (both probably real and some probably trolling), and it can be a fun intellectual exercise to debate.

dools 5y ago
You are allowed to appeal to authority. The "Argument from Authority" fallacy only applies when you appeal to a false authority, such as listening to your yoga instructor's opinions on vaccination. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- GolangProject 5y ago
  There are clear cases where "true authorities", however defined, have been wrong about all kinds of subjects, so the fallacy still applies. If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists, you cannot justify that belief as strongly as someone who can argue from first principles or a clear chain of evidence. The appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious, but it's more likely to be so.
  - thfuran 5y ago
    If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists because you lack such expertise yourself, you're probably going to be wrong a lot less often when you appeal to authority than when you decide to disagree with them simply because experts are fallible.
    - GolangProject 5y ago
      That may well be true, depending on the quality of experts and specialists in your society (and assuming they aren't generally serving vested interests that could skew their views), but, epistemologically, you can't prove it without further appeals to authority. So it's experts all the way down!
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  People on HN tend to hate appeals to scientific authority, but you are right. Our resources for obtaining out own knowledge and expertise are limited, and trusting other experts is a useful heuristic that, while imperfect, is more effective than alternatives. Anyone who claims they have the requisite expertise and resources to verify most scientific facts on their own is lying.
- version_five 5y ago
  I don't think you or the replies to your comment are addressing the parent point. It's not a game where something is "allowed" or not. They are saying that they suspect most people would not be able to themselves demonstrate that the earth is round, and that their argumentation would end up relying on faith. Whether such reliance is "allowed" is irrelevant (This made me think of a kind of inverse example that came up recently: I had made a point in an online discussion and offered an argument for it in my comment. Someone replied and said they looked up what I was talking about and didn't see anything about what I'd mentioned, and so didn't accept it. The disagreement was not about the merits of the argument, but that they couldn't find that argument anywhere, and so apparently instead of considering it, they just rejected it as invalid. I've seen more variations of that recently, the whole "citation needed" thing, where people think that an "authority" is automatically necessary vs just thinking about what they were told and deciding if it does or doesn't make sense)
buttercraft 5y ago
I get what you're saying, but do you really need to "prove" it in this case? I mean, assume that the Earth is flat, and then think through the consequences. It requires a long-running, global conspiracy at all levels of society. And all to hide the fact from... whom? Edit to clarify: even if you can't "prove" it directly, you can probably show that it would have effects you do not observe.

dools 5y ago

You are allowed to appeal to authority. The "Argument from Authority" fallacy only applies when you appeal to a false authority, such as listening to your yoga instructor's opinions on vaccination. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

GolangProject 5y ago
There are clear cases where "true authorities", however defined, have been wrong about all kinds of subjects, so the fallacy still applies. If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists, you cannot justify that belief as strongly as someone who can argue from first principles or a clear chain of evidence. The appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious, but it's more likely to be so.
- thfuran 5y ago
  If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists because you lack such expertise yourself, you're probably going to be wrong a lot less often when you appeal to authority than when you decide to disagree with them simply because experts are fallible.
  - GolangProject 5y ago
    That may well be true, depending on the quality of experts and specialists in your society (and assuming they aren't generally serving vested interests that could skew their views), but, epistemologically, you can't prove it without further appeals to authority. So it's experts all the way down!
SantalBlush 5y ago
People on HN tend to hate appeals to scientific authority, but you are right. Our resources for obtaining out own knowledge and expertise are limited, and trusting other experts is a useful heuristic that, while imperfect, is more effective than alternatives. Anyone who claims they have the requisite expertise and resources to verify most scientific facts on their own is lying.
version_five 5y ago
I don't think you or the replies to your comment are addressing the parent point. It's not a game where something is "allowed" or not. They are saying that they suspect most people would not be able to themselves demonstrate that the earth is round, and that their argumentation would end up relying on faith. Whether such reliance is "allowed" is irrelevant (This made me think of a kind of inverse example that came up recently: I had made a point in an online discussion and offered an argument for it in my comment. Someone replied and said they looked up what I was talking about and didn't see anything about what I'd mentioned, and so didn't accept it. The disagreement was not about the merits of the argument, but that they couldn't find that argument anywhere, and so apparently instead of considering it, they just rejected it as invalid. I've seen more variations of that recently, the whole "citation needed" thing, where people think that an "authority" is automatically necessary vs just thinking about what they were told and deciding if it does or doesn't make sense)

buttercraft 5y ago

I get what you're saying, but do you really need to "prove" it in this case? I mean, assume that the Earth is flat, and then think through the consequences. It requires a long-running, global conspiracy at all levels of society. And all to hide the fact from... whom? Edit to clarify: even if you can't "prove" it directly, you can probably show that it would have effects you do not observe.