humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On 5 Apr, 04:44, Potroast wrote:
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
> > > � �However....Newton and Einstein are two unique people Throwing out
> > > Newton's faults out (being religious in an era where burning witches
> > > was still legal) to justify something you see as wrong with Einstein
> > > isn't a fair comparison in this instance. Einstein isn't some has-been
> > > historical figure (or second tier philosopher who's ideas have never
> > > been empirically tested).... he still IS the elite.
>
> > So? The point, which has been made
> > by several people already, and which you
> > seem determined to ignore is that Einstein was
> > expert in physics, not in moral or political
> > philosophy. Since you are apparently
> > fond of reading about fallacies, here's one for
> > you: >http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
>
>   You are right. I do read up a great deal on them. Although I use
> them (and they are useful to the cause of reason) I find problems with
> some of them (a topic maybe for another day)
>
> For instance.... the "appeal to authority" fallacy seems somewhat a
> fallacy itself  (aside from being a contridiction that I should trust
> which every authority said it it was fallacy :) While not an absolute
> there is something to trusting people of authority that have
> demonstrated intellectual competence (and integrity). Not everyone is
> of equal caliber and capable of rationalizing what they can.
>
>    Even in law when a judge brings in an "expert witness"... while
> they do present their reasoning they want the "expert" bit because
> judges obviously aren't experts in everything. (e.g they wouldn't
> necessarily know the difference between an untrustworthy DNA result
> and a good one)  This is an appeal to authority on some level. They
> are trusting authority..... not completely grasping the intricacies of
> molecular biology.

This is a common misunderstanding. Argument ad vereucundiam,
as the link explains, is the fallacy of appeal to *false* authority,
i.e.
treating an expert's opinion on a subject in which he is not expert
as though it was worth anything more than the average Joe's. There
is a related but conceptually distinct fallacy of relying exclusively
on experts who aren't representative of the main body of expert
opinion. The judge is guilty of neither: the expert witness is ex
hypothesi an expert in DNA, and the other party may challenge
his credentials or present another expert witness who disagrees.

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x