The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
We accept arguments from authority all the time because no one can be an expert in every field.
No, we accept statements of empirical fact from authority, because they are the ones who have access to it. It is a fallacy to back up an argument with "this expert supports it".
When such statements are used in an argument by another person, we accept those too.
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.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
i.e. when the person mentioned is qualified to make such a judgment, it's not a fallacy.
Are you implying that the 52 diplomats are not experts about international diplomacy?
If so
If not, the argument is not fallacious.
Either way - quit wasting people's time by using notions you don't understand properly.
In English, I listen to the interpretations and reasoning put forward by the teacher, and then draw my own conclusions. The reason teaching in those subjects is useful is because it suggests answers that the student may not have derived on his own, but it does not mean that the student should accept those answers without question.
Originally posted by Agathon
i.e. when the person mentioned is qualified to make such a judgment, it's not a fallacy.
It refers to facts Aggie, facts. The argument "we should bomb the palestinians back to the stone age" is no more correct from a diplomat than from a rabid xenophobe.
but it does not mean that the student should accept those answers without question
Wrong again.
It means that you should accept the answers unless you have good reason to doubt them. If you don't have reason to doubt them, you accept them as that is the truth as far as you know.
But, while you don't have to accept them dogmatically (i.e. you should leave them open to the possibility of being falsified by new evidence), you still have to accept them because you have no good reason not to. Doing this is what people mean by being "open minded"; doubting everything without sufficient reason to do so is just plain idiocy.
Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.
...
This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.
...
To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region.
Then, derived from these facts, the conclusion about what we should do.
We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.
Facts are used by experts to draw a conclusion. What's your problem today?
I didn't argue for or against the letter, Aggie - just pointed out a pretty blatant fallacy in the opening post.
There's no fallacy there, and certainly not a fallacious appeal to authority.
Please tell me what good reason you have to doubt the expertise or sincerity of these people? If not, admit you were wrong and ask your mother to spank you for it.
It means that you should accept the answers unless you have good reason to doubt them. If you don't have reason to doubt them, you accept them as that is the truth as far as you know.
Facts, Aggie. With respect to arguments, you listen and evaluate them yourself. You don't automatically doubt it; you just don't accept the fact that they claimed it as an argument for its truthhood.
Facts, Aggie. With respect to arguments, you listen and evaluate them yourself. You don't automatically doubt it; you just don't accept the fact that they claimed it as an argument for its truthhood.
So if your doctor told you that you had cancer, you wouldn't take this as reason to believe it true, even if you had no good reason to doubt him?
The whole point of consulting experts or using their statements in arguments is that we take their expertise as good reason to believe that what they say is true.
You're opening post makes it clear (to me, at least) that you are trying to say "Bush/Blair = bad because these people say so".
No. More like "here are some experts in the field who have no underlying political reason to push an anti-Bush/Blair line saying that the policy is wrong. This is good reason for us to strongly consider that they may be right."
That is not a fallacious appeal to authority. Go read up on that particular fallacy - it doesn't mean what you think it means.
What if I'd said, "It's reported that most scientists of high academic reputation who aren't funded by carbon emitting industries say that global warming is a myth"?
Wouldn't you begin to doubt global warming, or can't you trust anyone?
Tweet
Comment