Logical fallacy "Appeal to authority"

LG, your post was really a good one. I liked it.

One more time just so I am clear.

WHEN a Prophet attributes their information as having come directly from a God, this "Prophet" is relying on this Gods attributes to lend authority for said information?

Do you agree?

For example: If the King sends a messenger to relay a message - for example "Pay More Tax" then it's not the messenger who authority rests the command "Pay More Tax" but on the Kings'. Now, imagine there never was a King. Why would the messenger tell the people to do something like "Pay More Tax"? Could it be, oh, I don't know?.... Maybe the messenger wanted the money and power and just pretended there was a King? If we noticed the messenger was suddenly wealthy and in a powerful position over the common people, well then, anecdotally, I'd say yes - you damn well can bet that's the case!

M
 
Michael said:
LG, your post was really a good one. I liked it.

One more time just so I am clear.

WHEN a Prophet attributes their information as having come directly from a God, this "Prophet" is relying on this Gods attributes to lend authority for said information?

Do you agree?

For example: If the King sends a messenger to relay a message - for example "Pay More Tax" then it's not the messenger who authority rests the command "Pay More Tax" but on the Kings'. Now, imagine there never was a King. Why would the messenger tell the people to do something like "Pay More Tax"? Could it be, oh, I don't know?.... Maybe the messenger wanted the money and power and just pretended there was a King? If we noticed the messenger was suddenly wealthy and in a powerful position over the common people, well then, anecdotally, I'd say yes - you damn well can bet that's the case!

M
Click to expand...
yes

however there are two aspects to investigating a theistic claim.

One is what is sometimes called "the transparency of the medium" (or investigating the state of the person making the claim) - kind of like a window is a transparent medium to the degree that it enables vision of the outside world (and isn't coated in grime or merely a sheet of glass over a brick wall). If one (on the inside) thinks they are looking at the outside world without the assistance of a transparent medium, actually they are looking at a wall. IOW you can go on and on about bogus prophets, but still it remains, in conditioned life we are helpless to approach transcendence unless we get the assistance of a transparent medium .... just like one can go on and on about bogus doctors, but when in a state of chronic sickness, better health demands that one receive their assistance.

The second issue is determining the validity of the claim, per se, (which is covered by Wilson's 3 points)
 
The thing is LG, there is no transcendence as in leaving phycial reality. Yes there may be different states of mind, but these are all based in the brain tissue. Any thoughts, experiences or ideas that who coalesced into opinions and have left the mouth of a so-called "Prophet" in the form of sounds, originated in the brain of said prophet.

Hence it should be that the prophet is appealing for you to listen to her or him because they thought up something interesting. Not for you to listen to her or him because a leprechaun them something interesting.
 
Michael said:
The thing is LG, there is no transcendence as in leaving phycial reality. Yes there may be different states of mind, but these are all based in the brain tissue. Any thoughts, experiences or ideas that who coalesced into opinions and have left the mouth of a so-called "Prophet" in the form of sounds, originated in the brain of said prophet.
Click to expand...
Its hard to take your claim seriously since there is nowhere near the evidence for your claims about brain tissue and perception.


Hence it should be that the prophet is appealing for you to listen to her or him because they thought up something interesting. Not for you to listen to her or him because a leprechaun them something interesting.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you read this thread but you are a #1'er branching out to become a #2'er
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2171375&postcount=15
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
Its hard to take your claim seriously since there is nowhere near the evidence for your claims about brain tissue and perception.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely irrefutable that the mind exists in brain tissue, possibly a 2 mm thin layer of the outer cortex.


LG, are you going to say the mind does not exist directly in brain tissue? :bugeye:
 
Michael said:
It's absolutely irrefutable that the mind exists in brain tissue, possibly a 2 mm thin layer of the outer cortex.


LG, are you going to say the mind does not exist directly in brain tissue? :bugeye:
Click to expand...
problems arise when you claim it is the absolute origin of "ideas", ... and furthermore that, by necessity, defaults one to the position of negating transcendence.

IOW it is clear that you are talking about your ideas on where ideas come from as opposed to any empirical issue.

If you don't accept this I think you have to explain why it is that psychology still remains quite snugly within "soft science"
 
Assuming there is something I can call a mind, you agree said something comes from brain substance?
 
OK, I somewhat agree, but assuming the I in: "I think therefor I am" has meaning, would this "I" be derived ONLY and is a direct result of brain tissue?
 
Michael said:
OK, I somewhat agree, but assuming the I in: "I think therefor I am" has meaning, would this "I" be derived ONLY and is a direct result of brain tissue?
Click to expand...
given that there is no way to approach the "I" you indicate with hard science, it's difficult to understand how you could argue that it is (in capital letters).
 
The problem is being tackled by hard science - many of the nerve tracks of the BRAIN MATTER that give rise to the self are being studied and better understood as we speak. Beginning in the 17th century up till the present, most people (and all neuroscientists) agree that yes the brain tissue gives rise to the self - illusionary or otherwise.

One would have to go back to the 1500s to find people who thought the self was generated by spirits that flowed through the ventricals. We now understand that this just isn't the case.
 
Michael said:
The problem is being tackled by hard science - many of the nerve tracks of the BRAIN MATTER that give rise to the self are being studied and better understood as we speak. Beginning in the 17th century up till the present, most people (and all neuroscientists) agree that yes the brain tissue gives rise to the self - illusionary or otherwise.

One would have to go back to the 1500s to find people who thought the self was generated by spirits that flowed through the ventricals. We now understand that this just isn't the case.
Click to expand...
What can actually be determined by hard science is quite different from opinions about what hard science may accomplish in the future.

A brief investigation of the history of science clearly establishes this.
 
Science is becoming very sophisticated. Areas of the brain dedicated to empathy and compassion have been discovered. These probably make up part of the "self" thingy.

While the theory that hot spirits were inhaled, cooled by the brain and stored in the heart, - gaving rise to the individual was indeed prevalent for thousands of years, it's now understood that brain tissue alone does this.
 
Michael said:
Science is becoming very sophisticated. Areas of the brain dedicated to empathy and compassion have been discovered. These probably make up part of the "self" thingy.
Click to expand...
regardless, what can actually be determined by hard science is quite different from opinions about what hard science may accomplish in the future.

A brief investigation of the history of science clearly establishes this.

While the theory that hot spirits were inhaled, cooled by the brain and stored in the heart, - gaving rise to the individual was indeed prevalent for thousands of years, it's now understood that brain tissue alone does this.
Click to expand...
understood?
well certainly not in the peer reviewed classically empirical sense .....
 
Last edited:
Michael said:
Sorry about the grammar - thanks I'm always trying to improve :) Although I just typed into Google and got enough hits to make me think we need to have a discussion in Linguistics! :D

Yes, there is a possibility that they were mentally ill. BUT, I seriously doubt it. I just don't see the military discipline coming from someone THAT mentality ill (often hearing voices). Yes, I can see a person thinking that were appointed by God, Alexander is said to have thought himself of divine birth (Julius Caesar and Ghangus Khan as well), however these men didn't hear voices in their heads. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not putting Mohammad in their league, he united a couple of small arab tribes and then was snuffed out. But still, it seems more reasonable to assume he was a lier rather than mentally ill.


A simpler explanation would be he pretended (lied) to be doing a God's bidding as that was more likely to get people to do what he said. Thousands of TV evangelists use this method (lie) to motive people to give money everyday.

Of course, I made the assumption there was a Mohammad - more than likely he's a composite literary character and it was really his creators that lied for political purposes.
Click to expand...

Joan of arc heard voices.
 
lightgigantic said:
A brief investigation of the history of science clearly establishes this.
Click to expand...
I brief examination of the history of using the Scientific method will show it to be far and wide superior to religious crack pottery when it comes to explaining reality.

lightgigantic said:
understood?
well certainly not in the peer reviewed classically empirical sense .....
Click to expand...
Oh really LG. Well, lets type into Pubmed and see just how many peer reviewed papers come up for brain: Pubmed gee over 1 million in the last few decades.

I think it's safe to say the overwhelming consensus is that brain tissue is the substance where the "self" arises - nothing more and nothing less.
 
Michael said:
I brief examination of the history of using the Scientific method will show it to be far and wide superior to religious crack pottery when it comes to explaining reality.
Click to expand...
certainly not in the macrocosmic sense

Oh really LG. Well, lets type into Pubmed and see just how many peer reviewed papers come up for brain: Pubmed gee over 1 million in the last few decades.

I think it's safe to say the overwhelming consensus is that brain tissue is the substance where the "self" arises - nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...
erm ... big difference between a peer reviewed entry that mentions the word "brain" and a peer reviewed entry that concludes the brain is the sum and substance of the self.

:eek:

Actually a casual investigation indicates an array of terms used to explain different aspects of the self eg "self as context", "conceived self" etc etc
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top