Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:57 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming

Takes apart the Tol critique that Science Deniers exclusively use in their fevered (sic) imagination.



Edit: Seems to me.... there should be a very far right black dot at the bottom of the chart? IE--paid shills.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Paul Anthony » Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:26 pm

People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:59 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming

Takes apart the Tol critique that Science Deniers exclusively use in their fevered (sic) imagination.

Argument From Authority. Nice.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:51 am

If you make the barest read of the chart/article/link: its really correlation by EXPERTISE.

Argument from Authority: (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.[1]

Hope that helps.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:01 am

Arguments from Authority are fallacious if they assert that something is "confirmed" as being true just because relevantly qualified experts say so.

Personally I would go further than this, and say that even the views of relevantly qualified experts are only as valid as the reasoning and evidence they used to arrive at those views.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 2:52 am

Woo. No.

buy and use the dictionary.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:06 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Woo. No.
"No" what? Do you understand why the Argument From Authority is inherently fallacious?
buy and use the dictionary.
Which dictionary would that be? I've never seen a dictionary with an entry for "Argument From Authority", however I have seen the word "authority" defined as a source with extensive or specialised knowledge about a subject. Furthermore I have never heard of a fallacy of Argument From Irrelevant Authority, presumably because such a concept is blatantly tautological.

PS That graph is also an Argument from Popularity and a Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
Last edited by Fab Yolis on Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:21 am, edited 3 times in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:18 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Arguments from Authority are fallacious if they assert that something is "confirmed" as being true just because relevantly qualified experts say so.

Personally I would go further than this, and say that even the views of relevantly qualified experts are only as valid as the reasoning and evidence they used to arrive at those views.
PS: If Arguments From Authority are to be considered valid so long as they only assert that something is likely to be true just because relevantly qualified experts say so, then who decides what "likely" is and how do they decide it? Who decides what a "relevantly qualified expert" is and how do they decide it? Something Orwellian is going on here...
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:50 am

Woo. No. /// You are being tiresome, silly, repetitious and a blockhead.

buy and use the dictionary. /// don't quibble. lots of dictionaries will have phrases that act as words.

I'll post it again as you apparently haven't read the definition: Argument from Authority: (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.[1]

See the bold? and the can? Meaning it can be valid or not as the conditions for validity are met or failed????

To say as you do that Argument from Authority is inherently fallacious is simply ignorant BUT to make that argument with the definition and emphasis laid out before you is just head up your ass stupid....... and refusing to learn.

Be direct, be honest, admit to and thereby learn from your mistakes. Enjoy the process.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:28 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
I'll post it again as you apparently haven't read the definition: Argument from Authority: (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.[1]
What if the authority cited is Not a True Scotsman?
See the bold? and the can? Meaning it can be valid or not as the conditions for validity are met or failed????
You still haven't answered my question: do you understand why Arguments From Authority are inherently fallacious? Hint: I've already explained it to you in this thread!
To say as you do that Argument from Authority is inherently fallacious is simply ignorant BUT to make that argument with the definition and emphasis laid out before you is just head up your ass stupid....... and refusing to learn.
No, what's stupid is restating a definition when I have already explained that said definition inadequate. Do you even realise that you are using an Argument From Authority to justify your definition of Argument From Authority??
Be direct, be honest, admit to and thereby learn from your mistakes. Enjoy the process.
Ditto.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:37 am

If a "relevantly qualified" source has a particular view on an issue, all it means is that it is more sensible and efficient to rigorously investigate and assess what it has to say about the issue before undertaking equally rigorous investigation into and assessment of what other less qualified sources have to say. It does NOT mean that the view of a source should be favoured simply because it is the most "relevantly qualified" source.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:55 am

Your argument is: "If you want to know what a word means, you should not use a dictionary because to do so is inherently fallacious."

You can't be more stupid.

Go away.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:00 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Your argument is: "If you want to know what a word means, you should not use a dictionary because to do so is inherently fallacious."

You can't be more stupid.

Go away.
No, that's not my argument. You'd make a fine Prole, you know that?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:02 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Arguments from Authority are fallacious if they assert that something is "confirmed" as being true just because relevantly qualified experts say so.

Personally I would go further than this, and say that even the views of relevantly qualified experts are only as valid as the reasoning and evidence they used to arrive at those views.
Most of what you are talking about is the problem of nothing being provable. We can only get closer to certainty, never being sure just how far away from it we are. So the "who" that decides who the authorities are, are those who have studied the evidence and gone over the reasoning and can explain it. It's circular because that's all we have.

The authority is verified in the way you stated above, that the validity is found in the reasoning and evidence. If someone can look at all the evidence and apply reason to it and come to the same conclusions, then it's valid. All this rests on there being rules for how to collect evidence and understandings of what "reason" is.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:10 pm

In a cascade of relevance, what we have is:

What is the truth.
What is the best evidence of the truth.
What is an argument from Authority.
What is the Fallacy of Arguing from Authority.

Pieces can be matched up as appropriate.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:56 pm

Lausten wrote: Most of what you are talking about is the problem of nothing being provable.
No it's not. What I'm talking about is drawing the crucial distinction between evidence and someone's opinion about the evidence.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:21 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Lausten wrote: Most of what you are talking about is the problem of nothing being provable.
No it's not. What I'm talking about is drawing the crucial distinction between evidence and someone's opinion about the evidence.
You can't compare scientific analysis to opinion.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 19, 2016 5:24 am

Lausten wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Lausten wrote: Most of what you are talking about is the problem of nothing being provable.
No it's not. What I'm talking about is drawing the crucial distinction between evidence and someone's opinion about the evidence.
You can't compare scientific analysis to opinion.
Exactly.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Mon Sep 19, 2016 6:34 pm

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Lausten wrote: Most of what you are talking about is the problem of nothing being provable.
No it's not. What I'm talking about is drawing the crucial distinction between evidence and someone's opinion about the evidence.
You can't compare scientific analysis to opinion.
Exactly.
Then don't do it. Like you just did.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Paul Anthony » Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:04 pm

This study, whether right or wrong, points out a problem. It is very difficult to be taken seriously if your findings conflict with the current consensus.

Image
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:11 pm

Paul: what are you responding to? Seems to me resolving conflicting studies is what science is all about..........you know, its NOT a political process. with die hard adherents attached to one position or the other. You do recognize that?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Paul Anthony » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:26 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Paul: what are you responding to? Seems to me resolving conflicting studies is what science is all about..........you know, its NOT a political process. with die hard adherents attached to one position or the other. You do recognize that?
It shouldn't be, but because of massive government funding science is sometimes politicized..and corrupted.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:35 pm

Paul: what are you responding to?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:42 pm

Lausten wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Lausten wrote: Most of what you are talking about is the problem of nothing being provable.
No it's not. What I'm talking about is drawing the crucial distinction between evidence and someone's opinion about the evidence.
You can't compare scientific analysis to opinion.
Exactly.
Then don't do it. Like you just did.
I haven't and I didn't.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:38 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Lausten wrote: Most of what you are talking about is the problem of nothing being provable.
No it's not. What I'm talking about is drawing the crucial distinction between evidence and someone's opinion about the evidence.
You can't compare scientific analysis to opinion.
Exactly.
Then don't do it. Like you just did.
I haven't and I didn't.
Arguments by scientists in the relevant field were presented, then you started calling them arguments from authority. You can refute the data, or you can refute the authority of the person interpreting the data. But you are mixing the two, saying a scientific argument is opinion. You did it on this page. If that's not what you did, it should not be hard for you to show that you didn't.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:24 am

Lausten wrote: Arguments by scientists in the relevant field were presented,
No they weren't, opinions of scientists in the relevant field were presented. Arguments are composed of reason and evidence, not of mere declarations of belief.
You can refute the data, or you can refute the authority of the person interpreting the data.
Which are two completely different things. In this particular case, there is no data to refute and consequently I simply do not care whether the scientists have authority here.
But you are mixing the two, saying a scientific argument is opinion.


No I'm not, I'm saying that a scientist's opinion is a scientist's opinion. Having a few letters after you name does not magically transmute your opinion into a scientific argument.
You did it on this page. If that's not what you did, it should not be hard for you to show that you didn't.
And indeed it isn't.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:35 am

Okay, no actual data about how the scientists reached their conclusion was shown. But the chart was about level of expertise. That is exactly how you get those letters after your name. Sure, it's not automatic that everyone with the same letters has the same expertise, which is why the chart broke them down by levels. So the data you need to refute in this case is behind the chart. This isn't a peer reviewed journal, it's a forum, so if you see a chart and you think it's wrong, you need to go find out more about it and say why. But you simply dismissed it. You saw the word "expertise" and you said, "that's authority", therefore dismiss it.

An expert is someone who has demonstrated knowledge, has passed the tests to show their ability. An authority is the one "wrote the book" that others refer to, the one who has the theory that no one has been able challenge yet. So actually authorities are even better. What you did is confuse it with the "argument from authority" fallacy, which is about people making knowledge claims outside their field of expertise. Again, you would have to look into the data of the chart to say that the dots on it represent people who don't know about climate change.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:16 am

Lausten wrote:Okay, no actual data about how the scientists reached their conclusion was shown. But the chart was about level of expertise.
So far so good...
That is exactly how you get those letters after your name.
Irrelevant.
Sure, it's not automatic that everyone with the same letters has the same expertise, which is why the chart broke them down by levels.


It doesn't matter whether they have varying levels of expertise. What matters is the reason and evidence upon which their views are based.
So the data you need to refute in this case is behind the chart.
No it's not, it's got nothing to do with the chart.
This isn't a peer reviewed journal, it's a forum, so if you see a chart and you think it's wrong, you need to go find out more about it and say why.


I have already explained why I think it's wrong.
But you simply dismissed it. You saw the word "expertise" and you said, "that's authority", therefore dismiss it.
I dismissed it because it was trying to make the argument for climate change solely on the basis of expert opinion.
An expert is someone who has demonstrated knowledge, has passed the tests to show their ability.
Interesting that you should use the word "tests" as opposed to, say, "exams"...
An authority is the one "wrote the book" that others refer to, the one who has the theory that no one has been able challenge yet. So actually authorities are even better.
Wtf??
What you did is confuse it with the "argument from authority" fallacy, which is about people making knowledge claims outside their field of expertise.Again, you would have to look into the data of the chart to say that the dots on it represent people who don't know about climate change.


:roll: I've already been over this Lausten. If that were really the case then it would be called "Argument From Irrelevant Authority". The reason why it is called "Argument From Authority" is because an authority's view on a matter is only as good as the reason and evidence they can provide to back that view up!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:37 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: The reason why it is called "Argument From Authority" is because an authority's view on a matter is only as good as the reason and evidence they can provide to back that view up!
No. Buy a dictionary since you won't read what is above.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:29 am

I'd hoped you had reconsidered, but my hopes are dashed once again.

What you're saying is, if you took your auto to an auto mechanic and he said it's your struts, you'd ask why, and if he said, well, I wrote the book on struts, and he showed you the book, and all the reviews and rewards the book got, you'd say that was an argument from authority. So you'd you go to other experts in the fields of autos, and they'd give some small range of similar opinions, and some of them would say they know the strut book guy and say he is indeed the authority, but you'd still do nothing because you only had an argument from authority. Then you'd drive your car and the struts would fail, and you'd die.
Here's one of those dictionary things. I'm not going to regurgitate it for you.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:06 pm

Lausten: I think that is a good and full set of definitions. The distinction always in my mind.

If you are talking to Woo, he has modified his position just a little bit and I may be stuck on what he first said: "Arguments from Authority are fallacious if they assert that something is "confirmed" as being true just because relevantly qualified experts say so." THAT statement is wrong at least two different ways.

Whats the over/under bet that Woo will read it....and then understand it .... and then post consistently with .... whatever? Yeah, I don't care either.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:37 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Whats the over/under bet that Woo will read it....and then understand it .... and then post consistently with .... whatever? Yeah, I don't care either.
The starting presumption, based on previous experience, is about a 10% chance that he'll say, "oh, I see." Unfortunately it's not just him. A lot of people here "argument from authority fallacy" and think that is the only meaning. What is meant is, "fallacious version of an argument from authority". If we don't have valid versions of arguments from authority, then we have no reason for a university system of degrees and diplomas, the word "certification" means nothing, the bar exam is just a formality, book reviews are just for fun, we might as well just use astrology. Or, I guess we can all be open minded and do our own research.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:38 pm

Lausten wrote: An authority is the one "wrote the book" that others refer to, the one who has the theory that no one has been able challenge yet. So actually authorities are even better.
In that case, since I've written several books, you will always defer to my opinion, right? :twisted:
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3930
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Lausten » Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:15 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:
Lausten wrote: An authority is the one "wrote the book" that others refer to, the one who has the theory that no one has been able challenge yet. So actually authorities are even better.
In that case, since I've written several books, you will always defer to my opinion, right? :twisted:
Yes, that's it. Anyone can write any book on anything, then they get their "authority" badge and can say anything.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:46 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote: The reason why it is called "Argument From Authority" is because an authority's view on a matter is only as good as the reason and evidence they can provide to back that view up!
No. Buy a dictionary since you won't read what is above.
How about you buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "argument". Because what you've written here sure as {!#%@} doesn't meet it!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:54 pm

Lausten wrote:I'd hoped you had reconsidered, but my hopes are dashed once again.

What you're saying is, if you took your auto to an auto mechanic and he said it's your struts, you'd ask why, and if he said, well, I wrote the book on struts, and he showed you the book, and all the reviews and rewards the book got, you'd say that was an argument from authority. So you'd you go to other experts in the fields of autos, and they'd give some small range of similar opinions, and some of them would say they know the strut book guy and say he is indeed the authority, but you'd still do nothing because you only had an argument from authority. Then you'd drive your car and the struts would fail, and you'd die.
No, if I went to a mechanic and he said my problem was my struts, I'd ask him to provide a rational explanation for his assessment based on the available evidence (i.e. the visible condition of my struts, the logical causal consistency of strut issues with the problems my car was experiencing). If his whole response amounted to nothing more than "I wrote the book on struts", then I'd promptly clear out of his premises before he could clear out my wallet! Even if he did give me a logical causal explanation, I might still take my car to another mechanic to get a second quote and second evidence-based opinion.

There are three good reasons why I would not be satisfied with the mechanic simply responding that he "wrote the book on struts", regardless of how many good reviews the book had. Can you guess what they are? (Hint: I've already touched on one of them in this post)
Here's one of those dictionary things. I'm not going to regurgitate it for you.
Anyone who tries to tell you that Argument From Authority either wishes to control you or is (wittingly or unwittingly) working on behalf of someone who wishes to.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:00 am

Lausten wrote:
Paul Anthony wrote:
Lausten wrote: An authority is the one "wrote the book" that others refer to, the one who has the theory that no one has been able challenge yet. So actually authorities are even better.
In that case, since I've written several books, you will always defer to my opinion, right? :twisted:
Yes, that's it. Anyone can write any book on anything, then they get their "authority" badge and can say anything.
Just wondering Lausten: did you grow up in North Korea?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:45 am

Woo....do you see that Lausten is being sarcastic? Its rare ((I think?)) but there it is. You rejection of authority is........childish. I suppose when you have a problem with struts, you ask the next stranger on the street, the waiter, or the taxi cab driver?

I know Paul despises and mocks and dismisses expertise.......... unless......... its his own based on HIS years of experience.

Cracks me up: hoomans so silly.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Fab Yolis
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by Fab Yolis » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:53 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Woo....do you see that Lausten is being sarcastic?
My view is that either everything he says here is an act of trolling, or none of it is. I am not convinced of the former possibility.
You rejection of authority is........childish. I suppose when you have a problem with struts, you ask the next stranger on the street, the waiter, or the taxi cab driver? I know Paul despises and mocks and dismisses expertise.......... unless......... its his own based on HIS years of experience
I just said what I'd do, and it's none of those things. Are you just here for the trollz too?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Consensus re Concensus: AGW is Confirmed, Positive Correlation to Expertise

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:56 am

Sarcasm is not trolling. Neither is identifying your driving motivation.

sucks to be you........... and, grow up.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?