Logical fallacy "Appeal to authority"
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Michael, you will get nowhere with LG except running round&round in silly circles.
All LG's posts in this thread are strawmen. LG cannot discuss the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
Why do modern priests, preachers, etc lie about talking with gods? Why does anyone?
Why ask this only about "prophets"?
All LG's posts in this thread are strawmen. LG cannot discuss the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
Why do modern priests, preachers, etc lie about talking with gods? Why does anyone?
Why ask this only about "prophets"?
Last edited:
I doubt that empiricism is anywhere close to a valid tool of enquiry to analyze the situation
yup
back to the ol focus on sva dharma eh as the means, the truth and the light, eh?
so anything that is created as anything has its origins in a human brain? (or brain like a human, but maybe slightly better)?
golly ....
[/QUOTE]
as mentioned already, anything that cannot get past issues of sva dharma (whether it be a half baked religion or an atheists abridged version of a bona fide one) has nothing to feed on except appeals to authority. It explains why half baked religions effectively go nowhere and why atheists arguments find noble acclaim amongst societal maniacs.
yes since it is forever an abstraction ... as it applies to the physical world it can get a bit woolly however ....
Don't spose you can show me an actual circle in the "real" world, eh?
(let those tacit explanations start flyin brutha and spread tha lurv)
Let me get this straight - you agree with me on three points:
(1)
When Rob Hubbard said he was "channeling" Xenu and that these words he speaks are therefor important for people to listen to, this act of pretending to hear an Alien called Xenu (otherwise known as lying), is appealing to authority - in this case Xenu.
(2)
When Joseph Smith said he was "reading magical plates with Gods words written on them" with a "magical hat" and that these words he speaks are therefor important for people to listen to, this act of pretending to read words written from God (otherwise known as lying), is appealing to authority - in this case magical plates with Gods words written on them that only he can see (when looking through his magical hat).
(3)
Mathematical proofs are abstract necessary truths.
(1)
When Rob Hubbard said he was "channeling" Xenu and that these words he speaks are therefor important for people to listen to, this act of pretending to hear an Alien called Xenu (otherwise known as lying), is appealing to authority - in this case Xenu.
(2)
When Joseph Smith said he was "reading magical plates with Gods words written on them" with a "magical hat" and that these words he speaks are therefor important for people to listen to, this act of pretending to read words written from God (otherwise known as lying), is appealing to authority - in this case magical plates with Gods words written on them that only he can see (when looking through his magical hat).
(3)
Mathematical proofs are abstract necessary truths.
No doubt.
Agree completely. The whole point of Buddhism is its something any one can do without any need for supernatural authorities or intervention. Like relativity it was hard to figure out the first time, but now that the cat is out of the bag any one can use it.
Or Lao Tzu for that matter.
LG - I'm waiting....
How do you do that page cut thing?
Some monotheists here really shit on Buddhism. I wonder why? They say it's not "keeping it real" and then somehow suggest that their completely superstitious-based belief system is "real"
Weird.
I know people who "keep it real" and practice Zen meditation.
I know people who decided Buddhism was great but they wanted to have kids and so backed off it.
Regardless, it's more a matter of each to their own. Unlike monotheism where there is only one shoe and it must fit everyone, Buddhism seems to be a sort of, try on and if you like it then great if not that's fine too.
I think your whole authority argument has serious problems
You can find more details why from Gustav's post
(not to say that I don't have other means to discredit the claims of Scientologists, or at the least, contextualize their claims in a wider framework)
a better argument than authority is to look at qualification
for instance you can get tons of medical advice, but the best course is to pay extra special attention to those who are actually qualified.
It may not be possible to be intimately familiar with every discipline of knowledge but it doesn't mean we are powerless to separate the wheat from the chaff.
sure ... although I think there are a better choice of word combinations than "mathematical proof" .... especially when you tie it to the word "abstraction"
Let me make state my question clearly.
- WE start with the assumption there is no Xenu.
- Ron Hubbard claims he is channeling information from Xenu.
- Ron Hubbard makes the claim that this Xenuic information is really really really important for you to listen to and accept, because it comes from X*nu [not Ron he's but the Last Messenger (pbuh) this information is from X*nu]
Claiming Xenuic information is important simply BECAUSE it comes directly from Xenu is makeing an argument by appealing to authority (in this case Xenu).
Do you agree: Yes or No?
IMO appealing to authority (in this case Xenu) Ron is in a sense trying to give merit to his information based on where said information supposedly originated (from Xenu) and not to the information itself.
I think we can further say that by this act, appealing to authority, Ron shows us his cards - that he is full of shit. Because if what he had to say was worth listening to, he'd have simply said it. There would be ZERO need to invoke Xenu. But, because what he had to say was all bullshit, there's the need to invoke a Xenu creature.
Human's are probably prone to falling for this fallacy because we are genetically hard wired to follow an alpha monkey - and who could be more alpha than the Intergalactic Overlord X*nu (pbuh)!!!
Do you agree to this as well?
Seems straight forward to me,
M
- WE start with the assumption there is no Xenu.
- Ron Hubbard claims he is channeling information from Xenu.
- Ron Hubbard makes the claim that this Xenuic information is really really really important for you to listen to and accept, because it comes from X*nu [not Ron he's but the Last Messenger (pbuh) this information is from X*nu]
Claiming Xenuic information is important simply BECAUSE it comes directly from Xenu is makeing an argument by appealing to authority (in this case Xenu).
Do you agree: Yes or No?
IMO appealing to authority (in this case Xenu) Ron is in a sense trying to give merit to his information based on where said information supposedly originated (from Xenu) and not to the information itself.
I think we can further say that by this act, appealing to authority, Ron shows us his cards - that he is full of shit. Because if what he had to say was worth listening to, he'd have simply said it. There would be ZERO need to invoke Xenu. But, because what he had to say was all bullshit, there's the need to invoke a Xenu creature.
Human's are probably prone to falling for this fallacy because we are genetically hard wired to follow an alpha monkey - and who could be more alpha than the Intergalactic Overlord X*nu (pbuh)!!!
Do you agree to this as well?
Seems straight forward to me,
M
Suppose there is a Xenu. So what??? What makes Xenu a valid authority?
Let me promblematize your whole authority argument more clearly
There are two doctors (A & B)
Doctor A is capable of giving good advice
Doctor B isn't
If one follows Doctor B's advice, does that make the claims of Doctor A less valid? (after all, they are both "appealing to authority)
If one knows that Doctor B isn't capable of giving good advice, then the doctor's authority is compromised, thus there is nothing to appeal to. Doctor A, however, has an authority that is established and worthy of appeal.
Assuming neither doctor is making unsupported or un-evidenced claims (i.e. homeopathy actually works), then their authority is trustworthy until compromised (i.e. demonstrating malpractice).
The difference between a doctor's authority on medicine and L. Ron Hubbard's authority on Xenu is that the former can provide independent verification. The latter gives only his word. Penicillin has a track record and the results demonstrable; thetans on the other hand...
Assuming neither doctor is making unsupported or un-evidenced claims (i.e. homeopathy actually works), then their authority is trustworthy until compromised (i.e. demonstrating malpractice).
The difference between a doctor's authority on medicine and L. Ron Hubbard's authority on Xenu is that the former can provide independent verification. The latter gives only his word. Penicillin has a track record and the results demonstrable; thetans on the other hand...
There is a chance Dr A is wrong and Dr. B accidentally gave some good advice.
Seeking to back up ones argument by appealing to a doctor is a fallacy - the Dr. could be wrong no matter how many times she was right in the past.
Which is why we instead use the scientific method.
Now:
You do agree that claiming Xenuic information is important simply BECAUSE it comes directly from Xenu is an EXAMPLE of making an argument by appealing to authority (in this case Xenu).
Yes this is such an example or no it is not?
MII
Trust me, Buddhism doesn't prevent conception in the least.
if its all a case of "much of a muchness", why do you think medical boards usual have procedures in place to avoid employing persons much like Doctor B?
Medical boards may employ scientific methods
Patients don't however
Patients simply rely on the authority of their doctor
Its like an example of the authority of doctor B
This however doesn't falsify claims that might be more like Doctor A
IOW, just because one professional representative may be in error, in no way suggests that all professional representatives are in error.
And as a further point, the task of determining the nature of being in error is assigned to professional bodies who are knowledgeable about the issue (like say medical boards in the case of doctors, as opposed to garbage collectors or even archeologists). Anyone who is a professional representative must have recourse to the issue of "authority" otherwise their professional field is useless and meaningless (do car mechanics thoroughly explain their procedures to people who haven't the foggiest about combustion engines? Are they required to only proceed if their customers are fully aware of the issue at hand, thus removing them from the grave error of simply relying on authority?)
....then one would have some authority in the matter
and as a further point, the authority of the doctor's capabilities/knowledge is verified by who exactly?
garbage collectors?
archeologists?
or other professionals in the said field?