4 ms·

Doesn't make it any less a logical fallacy. Andreessen partners could wipe their asses with $100 bills. If someone with less money tells them that's a poor us

by daenz 15y ago

Doesn't make it any less a logical fallacy. Andreessen partners could wipe their asses with $100 bills. If someone with less money tells them that's a poor use of money, would you tell him clearly Andreessen knows better because they have more money?

paul 15y ago
If only this were a logic problem consisting of three boolean variables... But reality is complex, and so I do give some weight to authority. For example, if I had a question about evolution, I would automatically trust an answer from Dawkins more than one from Santorum, even if you think that's some kind of fallacy.
- daenz 15y ago
  You are free to believe whatever you want, based on whatever criteria you want. But to argue that something is right or wrong because someone else has more money, has no weight. Re-read yesbabyyes comment. It makes no argument other than "who are you", "they are famous and accomplished" and "they are rich." It's a poor argument.
  - paul 15y ago
    Typically the fact that someone has more money would not be relevant, except in this case it's a discussion of capital allocation and a person (Andreessen) who is making a lot of money by being very good at capital allocation. It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer.
    - daenz 15y ago
      > It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer. Not really. It's like Michael Phelp's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not his butterfly stroke has room for improvement. No one is arguing that Andreessan is not good at making money. If people were, then your analogy would be correct. People are arguing whether or not his money was put to efficient use in this specific instance (by donating to charity). Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense?
      - irahul 15y ago
        > Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. > Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense? No it doesn't make sense. Your $100 for toilet paper example is pushing the boundaries of ridiculous which doesn't have anything to with the topic under discussion. People who haven't earned through investment preaching people who have made a fortune about efficient use of money, money which happens to be their personal money, is just sad.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        daenz 15y ago
        Way to miss the point :)
        jimmyvanhalen 15y ago
        the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;)
        daenz 15y ago
        That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known.
        irahul 15y ago
        "Michael Phelps sucks. He doesn't know shit about swimming." This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials?
        15y ago
astrofinch 15y ago
And who was it that told you appeal to authority was a fallacy? Some authority on fallacies like Wikipedia, maybe? :D http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as_weak_bayesian_evidence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as_weak_bayesian_evide... If a wealthy self-made person says something about how to make money, that's stronger Bayesian evidence for that actually being a good way to make money then if some random person says it.

by daenz 15y ago

paul 15y ago

If only this were a logic problem consisting of three boolean variables... But reality is complex, and so I do give some weight to authority. For example, if I had a question about evolution, I would automatically trust an answer from Dawkins more than one from Santorum, even if you think that's some kind of fallacy.

daenz 15y ago
You are free to believe whatever you want, based on whatever criteria you want. But to argue that something is right or wrong because someone else has more money, has no weight. Re-read yesbabyyes comment. It makes no argument other than "who are you", "they are famous and accomplished" and "they are rich." It's a poor argument.
- paul 15y ago
  Typically the fact that someone has more money would not be relevant, except in this case it's a discussion of capital allocation and a person (Andreessen) who is making a lot of money by being very good at capital allocation. It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer.
  - daenz 15y ago
    > It's like claiming that Michael Phelps's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not he's a good swimmer. Not really. It's like Michael Phelp's 14 gold medals should carry no weight in a discussion of whether or not his butterfly stroke has room for improvement. No one is arguing that Andreessan is not good at making money. If people were, then your analogy would be correct. People are arguing whether or not his money was put to efficient use in this specific instance (by donating to charity). Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense?
    - irahul 15y ago
      > Having 14 gold medals does not prove to anyone that your butterfly stoke technique could not be better. Having 14 gold medals means that though his butterfly stroke might or might not need improvement, a random punk on the internet doesn't have the authority to make a judgement call. > Nor does earning a lot of money prove that you always make good decisions with money. Take my $100 toilet paper example. Earning a lot of money through good investments does not make using $100 for toilet paper suddenly unassailable to criticism. Does this make sense? No it doesn't make sense. Your $100 for toilet paper example is pushing the boundaries of ridiculous which doesn't have anything to with the topic under discussion. People who haven't earned through investment preaching people who have made a fortune about efficient use of money, money which happens to be their personal money, is just sad.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - daenz 15y ago
        Way to miss the point :)
      - jimmyvanhalen 15y ago
        the "random punk" is probably a swimming coach ;)
        daenz 15y ago
        That's the point. The defense should be valid whether or not the identity of the critic is known.
        irahul 15y ago
        "Michael Phelps sucks. He doesn't know shit about swimming." This criticism should be valid regardless of my identity and credentials?
        15y ago

astrofinch 15y ago

And who was it that told you appeal to authority was a fallacy? Some authority on fallacies like Wikipedia, maybe? :D http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as_weak_bayesian_evidence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/aq2/fallacies_as_weak_bayesian_evide... If a wealthy self-made person says something about how to make money, that's stronger Bayesian evidence for that actually being a good way to make money then if some random person says it.