5 ms·

appeals to authority have some merit, you know. I for one appreciated the clarification that it was not mainstream, since sneaking a random controversial take

by ajkjk 1y ago

appeals to authority have some merit, you know. I for one appreciated the clarification that it was not mainstream, since sneaking a random controversial take into a comment thread as if it was fact without noting that it's contentious is disingenuous.

timr 1y ago
> appeals to authority have some merit, you know. No, they don't. If you don't know enough to argue on the merits, don't argue. A count of opinions is not an argument. > sneaking a random controversial take into a comment thread as if it was fact without noting that it's contentious is disingenuous. And again, you're justifying your judgment and dismissal based on hearsay. Saying "I refuse to believe it because experts disagree" is fine if you're unable or unwilling to look into an issue yourself, but in that case you have to realize you're basically ignorant. I realize that we all go through life taking most things on faith, but that also means that you should not cling to the opinions of others as a substitute for thought.
- ajkjk 1y ago
  yes they do. for one thing you do not make the rules around here; no one cares what you think counts as suitable grounds for arguing. For another, yes, authority has some merit. Doesn't make it fact, but certainly the prior we ought to assign for "medical authorities are correct" is quite high. Not certainty, but pretty confident, all else being equal. edit: I see you added "I realize that we all go through life taking most things on faith, but that also means that you should not cling to the opinions of others as a substitute for thought." Don't worry, nobody's doing that here. It's a question of weighting, not clinging. Maybe you mistook "this is not mainstream" to mean "this is definitely false because it's not mainstream"? It does not mean that. It is just helpful context for evaluating credibility.
  - timr 1y ago
    > for one thing you do not make the rules around here; no one cares what you think counts as suitable grounds for arguing. You're asserting that a extremely well-known logical fallacy is not a fallacy. It's not an HN rule, it's argumentation 101.
    - onethought 1y ago
      You are confusing what "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is. Namely you are ignoring the fallaciousness of it. The fallacy is where you use an authority in place of evidence. It is not fallacious to refer to consensus or experts. Else, you end up basically in the "Do your own research"/vaccine denier/climate deniers/flat earth territory. Appeals to experts is not a logical fallacy. It's actually smart, because you get to leverage agreed facts (the earth is round) even though you've never actually been to space to see it for yourself.
    - leephillips 1y ago
      There is no logical fallacy in play here. Nobody is saying “the argument is wrong because of who said it”. When assessing the probable significance of an agglomeration of empirical data, it’s valuable to know what experts in the field think about the data and their consensus about the inferences we can draw from it—even if the consensus might be mistaken: because the consensus is usually right.
      - timr 1y ago
        > There is no logical fallacy in play here. Nobody is saying “the argument is wrong because of who said it”. The OP literally dismissed the parent based on nothing more than the opinions of others. > When assessing the probable significance of an agglomeration of empirical data, it’s valuable to know what experts in the field think about the data and their consensus about the inferences we can draw from it—even if the consensus might be mistaken I already conceded that, if you have no ability or capacity to think or investigate the issue yourself, it's perfectly fine to defer to the opinions of others. But in doing so, you remain ignorant on the matter. > because the consensus is usually right. No. I understand that's a comforting belief -- and even politically charged, today -- but it's just an assertion.
        leephillips 1y ago
        More than just an assertion: the consensus is that the consensus is usually right, you see.

by ajkjk 1y ago

timr 1y ago

> appeals to authority have some merit, you know. No, they don't. If you don't know enough to argue on the merits, don't argue. A count of opinions is not an argument. > sneaking a random controversial take into a comment thread as if it was fact without noting that it's contentious is disingenuous. And again, you're justifying your judgment and dismissal based on hearsay. Saying "I refuse to believe it because experts disagree" is fine if you're unable or unwilling to look into an issue yourself, but in that case you have to realize you're basically ignorant. I realize that we all go through life taking most things on faith, but that also means that you should not cling to the opinions of others as a substitute for thought.

ajkjk 1y ago
yes they do. for one thing you do not make the rules around here; no one cares what you think counts as suitable grounds for arguing. For another, yes, authority has some merit. Doesn't make it fact, but certainly the prior we ought to assign for "medical authorities are correct" is quite high. Not certainty, but pretty confident, all else being equal. edit: I see you added "I realize that we all go through life taking most things on faith, but that also means that you should not cling to the opinions of others as a substitute for thought." Don't worry, nobody's doing that here. It's a question of weighting, not clinging. Maybe you mistook "this is not mainstream" to mean "this is definitely false because it's not mainstream"? It does not mean that. It is just helpful context for evaluating credibility.
- timr 1y ago
  > for one thing you do not make the rules around here; no one cares what you think counts as suitable grounds for arguing. You're asserting that a extremely well-known logical fallacy is not a fallacy. It's not an HN rule, it's argumentation 101.
  - onethought 1y ago
    You are confusing what "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is. Namely you are ignoring the fallaciousness of it. The fallacy is where you use an authority in place of evidence. It is not fallacious to refer to consensus or experts. Else, you end up basically in the "Do your own research"/vaccine denier/climate deniers/flat earth territory. Appeals to experts is not a logical fallacy. It's actually smart, because you get to leverage agreed facts (the earth is round) even though you've never actually been to space to see it for yourself.
  - leephillips 1y ago
    There is no logical fallacy in play here. Nobody is saying “the argument is wrong because of who said it”. When assessing the probable significance of an agglomeration of empirical data, it’s valuable to know what experts in the field think about the data and their consensus about the inferences we can draw from it—even if the consensus might be mistaken: because the consensus is usually right.
    - timr 1y ago
      > There is no logical fallacy in play here. Nobody is saying “the argument is wrong because of who said it”. The OP literally dismissed the parent based on nothing more than the opinions of others. > When assessing the probable significance of an agglomeration of empirical data, it’s valuable to know what experts in the field think about the data and their consensus about the inferences we can draw from it—even if the consensus might be mistaken I already conceded that, if you have no ability or capacity to think or investigate the issue yourself, it's perfectly fine to defer to the opinions of others. But in doing so, you remain ignorant on the matter. > because the consensus is usually right. No. I understand that's a comforting belief -- and even politically charged, today -- but it's just an assertion.
      - leephillips 1y ago
        More than just an assertion: the consensus is that the consensus is usually right, you see.