05 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderHere again you are wrong. It seem that almost every time you make a universal assertions, your shoot yourself in the foot.
You are wrong; all ad hominems are fallacies. The person themselves has nothing to do with the validity of the person's argument. Your definition of ad hominem doesn't count as it is only yours and no one else's on planet Earth's.
05 Jun 05
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question
The person in question is not significantly biased
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline
The authority in question must be identified
05 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiSorry to intrude, but you misunderstand the fallacy of appealing to authority. If an authority on a subject claims P concerning his or her area of expertise, then, under normal circumstances, that gives us a good prima facie reason for believing that P is true. Of course, it isn't the authority's claiming P that makes P true. As you point out, Einstein's claiming that e=mc^2 doesn't bring it about that e=mc^2. But Einstein's claim does give us a good prima facie reason for believing that e=mc^2. Your error, in short, consists in you overlooking the obvious fact that arguments based appeals to authority are not deductive in nature. Such arguments are inductive, in that we have good inductive evidence that when an authority makes a claim about his or her field of expertise, he or she is very often correct. Indeed, this is why he or she is an authority.
Provide for me the only definition of ad hominem. While your at it, find the only definition of fool. And then prove that that definition is logically the only correct definition.
An declaration that ones conclusion is correct simply ...[text shortened]... not prove a universal conclusion from an appeal to any authority.
Coletti, you should think about appeals to authority as special cases of appeals to testimony. I'm sure you think that one of the more common way we come to know things about the world is through the testimony of others. When you ask a person on the street for the time, and he looks at his watch and tells you the time, this gives you a good reason to think that the time is what he claims it to be. His testimony justifies your belief that the time is as he claims it to be because, at that moment, he is an authority on the time in virtue of having an instrument that tells time. It isn't the case that his testimony makes it the case that the time is what he claims it to be. Rather, it is the case that his beliefs about the time justify your beliefs that result from his testimony concerning the time because his beliefs about the time track the truth about the time.
Edit: Frogstomp is quicker on the trigger than I am, I see. His post is spot-on.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarractually I was hoping you'd post before I had to look for a text book
Sorry to intrude, but you misunderstand the fallacy of appealing to authority. If an authority on a subject claims P concerning his or her area of expertise, then, under normal circumstances, that gives us a good prima facie reason for believing that P is true. Of course, it isn't the authority's claiming P that makes P true. As you point out, Einstein' ...[text shortened]... he time.
Edit: Frogstomp is quicker on the trigger than I am, I see. His post is spot-on.
thank you for the nice edit
05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrTo a point I agree with you. An appeal to authority can carry some weight as part of an inductive argument. But what made no1's argument invalid was not simply that he made an appeal to authority, but that his conclusion was an absolute statement based solely on the appeal to authority. For him to say I was "wrong" requires him to prove I am wrong by his argument. His argument was incapable of proving anything.
Sorry to intrude, but you misunderstand the fallacy of appealing to authority. If an authority on a subject claims P concerning his or her area of expertise, then, under normal circumstances, that gives us a good prima facie reason for beli ...[text shortened]... is quicker on the trigger than I am, I see. His post is spot-on.
If a I ask a person for the time and he looks at his watch and tells me what he sees - that does not justify my believing the time is the correct. I can only justify believing that is a close approximation of the true time.
And finally, since no1 was claiming I was "wrong" about a definition - he's argument is even weaker on inductive grounds. Most all definitions are variable to some degree unless they are tautologically true. And there is no tautologically correct definition of "ad hominem" or "appeal to authority", as a short search of the Internet shows.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiSince according to you NO words or terms have any real meanings and you can make them into whatever you please, you are basically denying the possibility that you can ever be wrong. That is so plainly ridiculous that it doesn't deserve a detailed refutation. Basically, you have a problem with reality; do you think you're Napoleon, too?
To a point I agree with you. An appeal to authority can carry some weight as part of an inductive argument. But what made no1's argument invalid was not simply that he made an appeal to authority, but that his conclusion was an absolute statement based solely on the appeal to authority. For him to say I was "wrong" requires him to prove I am wrong by his ...[text shortened]... finition of "ad hominem" or "appeal to authority", as a short search of the Internet shows.
05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI never said there was "NO" words or terms the have "real" meaning. You can not even use my own words against me, you have to make up words I never used to support your lies.
Since according to you NO words or terms have any real meanings and you can make them into whatever you please, you are basically denying the possibility that you can ever be wrong. That is so plainly ridiculous that it doesn't ...[text shortened]... u have a problem with reality; do you think you're Napoleon, too?
It's amazing to see you do exactly what you are accusing others of doing - twisting peoples ideas and intended meanings around against all reason and sense. I can not even say you twist peoples words because you just skip their words and fabricate new ones.
You are by definition, not only a sophist, but a hypocrite as well.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiFirst, I'm not sure what you mean by 'absolute statement'. Do you mean a statement that, when symbolized in first-order logic, would begin with a universal quantifier?
To a point I agree with you. An appeal to authority can carry some weight as part of an inductive argument. But what made no1's argument invalid was not simply that he made an appeal to authority, but that his conclusion was an absolute statement based solely on the appeal to authority. For him to say I was "wrong" requires him to prove I am wrong by his ...[text shortened]... finition of "ad hominem" or "appeal to authority", as a short search of the Internet shows.
Second, it is often the case that a beliefs of one's is justified solely on the testimony of others. If my wife were to call me and tell me she was going to be late for dinner, then that would suffice for me being justified in believing she was going to be late for dinner. After all, my wife is an authority when it comes to when she will get home. Of course, this is all inductive on my part, but I'm not sure how that changes anything. As far as I can tell, no1 never claimed he was offering a deductive proof concerning the proper interpretation of scripture.
Third, for no1 to be justified in claiming that you are wrong does not require him to prove that you are wrong. Normally, to prove something means to establish something deductively from premises known to be true. This is an unreasonable standard outside of logic and mathematics, which deal specifically with deductive reasoning. In the vast majority if circumstances, the best we can do is to show that there are good but not absolutely conclusive reasons for thinking the claim our opponent makes is false.
Fourth, your response to the watch example is specious. Suppose the person of whom you ask the time tells you it is approximately noon. Under the vast majority if circumstances, this will be sufficient for you being justified in believing it is approximately noon. The lesson of the example holds; the testimony of the man on the street suffices to justify your belief because he is an authority on the time in virtue of having a device that tells time.
You are right about definitions. There is always a bit of play when it comes to definitions that are not merely a matter of stipulation. Even terms like 'bachelor' has no obvious definitions. The pope (an unmarried man of marriageable age) is less a bachelor than some Saudi prince with twenty wives. But this doesn't mean there are no constraints on the acceptability of an offered definition.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiReally? Who's words are these, jerkwad:
I never said there was "NO" words or terms the have "real" meaning. You can not even use my own words against me, you have to make up words I never used to support your lies.
It's amazing to see you do exactly what you are accusing others of doing - twisting peoples ideas and intended meanings around against all reason and sense. I can not even s ...[text shortened]... and fabricate new ones.
You are by definition, not only a sophist, but a hypocrite as well.
Since there are several definitions of any word - no one definition is correct just because it is found in a dictionary (or website)
Did I make that up, liar?
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiThus, I give you the words of your philosophical mentor:
I never said there was "NO" words or terms the have "real" meaning. You can not even use my own words against me, you have to make up words I never used to support your lies.
It's amazing to see you do exactly what you are accusing others of doing - twisting peoples ideas and intended meanings around against all reason and sense. I can not even s ...[text shortened]... and fabricate new ones.
You are by definition, not only a sophist, but a hypocrite as well.
And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Lewis Carroll, Alice Through the Looking Glass
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou may parrot the same drivel over and over again, but you are still wrong. There are NO circumstances where an argument directed at the person themselves i.e. ad hominem rather than their argument is not a fallacious argument. The characteristics of the person making the argument is totally irrelevant to the argument itself. If you knew anything about real logic rather than Humpty Dumpty-Coletti logic, you would know this.
Here again you are wrong. It seem that almost every time you make a universal assertions, your shoot yourself in the foot.
05 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI think you should recall your definition of truth, and not just belief. When making an argument, we are not shooting for just what we feel certain about - we want to argue for truth. And the best way is by valid deductive arguments.
First, I'm not sure what you mean by 'absolute statement'. Do you mean a statement that, when symbolized in first-order logic, would begin with a universal quantifier?
Second, it is often the case that a beliefs of one's is justified ...[text shortened]... no constraints on the acceptability of an offered definition.
Take the proposition: "she will be late (for dinner)." I'll go so far as to say I don't think you could believe that "she be late" is a true proposition based solely on your wife's testimony. Her testimony does not logical make the proposition true. And because it is impossible prove she will be late based on her testimony alone, then there is always the possibility she will in fact be on time. One can not believe something both is true and possible false at the same time. That is a contradiction, and it is irrational to believe both. You must reject one or the other.
However, I think you would have much more information than her testimony, including what time she told you, where she was calling from, what she was doing, etc. It takes a much greater amount of inductive evidence to make you believe something. But at that point, it is still not a true proposition. What you have is a case were you have not gone through all the rational arguments, but have come to a belief in a potential truth. But you still know that that belief is not a truth even if you feel certain about it.
Consider if I believed all crows are black. I have plenty of observations to support this belief. But since I have not seen all crows, I know logically that I can not say it is true that all crows are black. I should say that I believe that the next crow I see will be black. The is a reasonable inductive conclusion. But the truth is, some crows are white. And I did not have to see all the crow in the world to know that the mere observation of a lot of crows does not prove all crows are black. And I know logically that I can not believe all crows are black if I have not seen all crows.
Any time someone say that an inductive argument has a true conclusion - they are wrong. Inductive arguments will always make for possible true conclusions, maybe enough to comfortable believe them. Inductive argument may justify believing an event will occur, but the event does not exist as a true event until the event has occurred. I believe inductively that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I know the the it may not. In fact, I know "the sun will rise tomorrow" is not necessarily true. True is "I believe very much that the sun will rise tomorrow." If that is true or not remains to be seen. Belief is not the definition of true.
Merely believing something is true is does not make it true. And true is what we should not compromise on.
No1 one may believe I am wrong. He may feel I am wrong. But without valid arguments based on true premises - his conclusion that I am wrong is invalid. If anyone believes his conclusion is true based solely on the arguments he gave, then that person is irrational.