52 former diplomats bash Blair in public letter.

[Agathon]

How many times do I have to say it - facts obviously can be justified by an appeal to authority. "You have cancer" is an empirical, scientific fact.

And you believe there is no corresponding expertise relating to the effects of international policy? That is, no one is in a better position than anyone else to predict what may happen.

Your argument is total rubbish; as are your attempts to weasel out of admitting that you didn't really understand what an appeal to authority is.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
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."

Change "that they may be" to "whethor or not they are", and it's true.

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"?

Global warming is a matter of empirical scientific fact. Either the earth is getting warmer or it isn't.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
And you believe there is no corresponding expertise relating to the effects of international policy? That is, no one is in a better position than anyone else to predict what may happen.

When they make a claim of empirical fact, it's OK to justify that based on the fact that they said it was true. When they make an argument, it is not.

[Agathon]

When they make a claim of empirical fact, it's OK to justify that based on the fact that they said it was true. When they make an argument, it is not.

You've got to be kidding me, right?

Factual claims can be used as premises in arguments.

If an expert in global warming (Professor X) gives this argument:

1) Global warming is happening and the consequences will have a catastrophic effect on human civilization.
2) We should try to avoid catastrophic consequences to human civilization.
______

C) We should do something to prevent global warming.

That's a valid argument. He's used his knowledge of the facts (premise 1) to draw a conclusion along with premise 2 (which is a commonplace which anyone could accept).

So then if I say, mentioning Professor X

1A) Professor X is an expert on climate change.
2A) Professor X says based on his expert knowledge that we should do something to prevent global warming.
______

CA We should do something to prevent global warming.

... there is no fallacious appeal to authority because he is in fact an expert.

You don't seem to understand either that factual claims can be used in arguments or that appeals to authority are not always fallacious.

Keep hitting your head against that wall and you might eventually get it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon


You've got to be kidding me, right?

Factual claims can be used as premises in arguments.

Where did I deny this?

If an expert in global warming (Professor X) gives this argument:

1) Global warming is happening and the consequences will have a catastrophic effect on human civilization.
2) We should try to avoid catastrophic consequences to human civilization.
______

C) We should do something to prevent global warming.

Assuming 1 to be empirical scientific fact (I'll ignore that catastrophic is subjective for now), the fact that Professor X gave that argument is not justification that it's correct. The premise is assumed to be correct, but the logical steps are not assumed to be so just because an expert made them. However, in this case especially it is quite clear that those steps are correct.

Let's assume, OTOH, that the argument was made like this:

1) Global warming is happening and the consequences will have a catastrophic effect on human civilization.
2) We should try to avoid catastrophic consequences to human civilization.
______

C) We should not do something to prevent global warming.

Isn't it clear that not taking the argument on faith will result in the observation that the conclusion of the "expert" is, in fact, wrong? This of course has more significance in areas where truth or falsehood cannot be established completely (virtually all political debates).

That's a valid argument. He's used his knowledge of the facts (premise 1) to draw a conclusion along with premise 2 (which is a commonplace which anyone could accept).

Yes, his argument is, in fact valid. However, the argument "we ought to do stuff against global warming because Professor X says so" is not valid.

[Agathon]

But you are confusing a formal fallacy with a substantive fallacy.

The fallacy of appeal to an authority is a substantive fallacy not a formal one.

Your error is to treat it as a formal fallacy.

In fact "We should do something about Global warming, because Professor X says so" is a formally valid argument if one adds the obviously suppressed premise "We should defer to the experts in matters of expertise" and "Professor X is an expert in the relevant area". There is no formal (logical) fallacy committed by such an argument - thus it is valid in the way that logicians use when they use the term "valid".

The fallacy of an appeal to authority would occur if the premise "Professor X is an expert in the relevant area" was false. But that wouldn't mean that the argument wasn't logically valid, just that it wasn't sound. The very same argument (which is valid come what may, since validity is a property of arguments independent of the truth conditions of their premises) can commit the fallacy depending on whether or not PX is an expert.

Your idea that "the logical steps are not correct" was clearly made in ignorance of the fact that what is being talked about here is a substantive fallacy and not a formal one. We can make the "logical steps correct" and still commit the fallacy.

Now if you want to argue over whether we should ever take an expert's view on faith, then it is obvious that we must to get anything done. But you seem to have in mind a simplistic picture of the justification.

The fact that an expert says it is not a justification for its being true, but a justification for our believing it to be true.

If we believe there are such things as experts then we believe that some people are better informed than others about certain things. If we believe that someone is an expert, then that by itself is reason to believe what they say. But that doesn't mean that what they say is not defeasible - it could be false (unless we define expertise as infallibility), but the truth is that if there are experts then they are much more likely to be right than we are - that is the basis of our confidence in experts. But even though we can't be sure that it is true it is certain that (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) we must believe it or abandon our belief that there are experts at all.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why the hell do kids think that passing Philosophy 110 qualifies them to argue about the subject with professional philosophers?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
That faked quote is a disgrace. You might consider deleting your post Tripledoc.

I see no evidence that it is a fake so far. Apparently it originated in the newspaper the Palestinian Chronicle.

If it can be proven that this general never existed as claimed by some, then it is a fake.

Ultimately all quotes can be called fakes then. And that would be rather too convenient.

[Tripledoc]

nm

[Drake Tungsten]

I'd be more upset about this despicable action if it wasn't the work of a DL...

[Tripledoc]

yawn

[East Street Trader]

Tripledoc.

That quote is defamatory.

If you do not mind opening yourself and the owners of this site to a libel action on the off chance that it may be true, fine.

Although acknowledging that you do not actually know that the foul thing is true will not help your defence.

[Alexander's Horse]

hmmm, I don't see much ambassador material comment here.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
Tripledoc.

That quote is defamatory.

If you do not mind opening yourself and the owners of this site to a libel action on the off chance that it may be true, fine.

Although acknowledging that you do not actually know that the foul thing is true will not help your defence.

Well, they can sue me. The quote is placed on hundreds of sites on the internet. I found it on a remembrance page for Rachel Corey. Maybe someone should sue the owners of that site. I don't know if the quote is fake or true, but from what I know of what Sharon has done it seems plausible. Why would someone fabricate a quote, that would hurt the case? It is not that Sharon has not said or done anything that makes him less of a war criminal, than if this quote was not invented. Also why has none of the sites (all rightwing) been able to get an official denial by the Israeli government.

Also they fail to point to the person who manufactured the quote, if that is what they claim.

And also now that I quoted the quote, why should I remove it? People can judge for themselves. Should people who claimed that there were WMD in Iraq go back and erase all their arguments?

[Tripledoc]

Dror Nanas:
Why I Have To Like Ariel Sharon

For the first time in my life I can understand the appeal of young Germans to the Nazi party 50 years ago.

I personally have a vast amount of untapped energy deep inside myself, which I can only refer to as an undirected burning anger. I think many of my peers have this same thing, probably with a different name. It has a lot to do with our age, place in society, personal confidence, testosterone, and a hundred other issues.

Being in Israel, "The Homeland," stokes these internal flames. The glamour of the military, the constant threat of danger, the eminence of war, the moving stories of Zionist heroics (the Kibbutz Ayalon bullet factory, the residents of Tel Hai, Haganah, etc…) For a kid like myself, with twenty-four years of built-up passion and anger, I can easily see the appeal of the highest levels of patriotism . The longer I am here, the more I feel pulled by the right side of the political spectrum.

The appeal of the militant patriotism in this country is easy to see. It is a great place to be if you want to unload some anger. They give you a gun, tell you how we've been getting our ass kicked for the last 4000 years, tell you everyone around you is your enemy, and send you off more than ready to die for your country. At least that is how I see it. It is simple here. There are good guys and there are bad guys. The bad guys want to push you into the sea and end your people. Our planet has 800 million of them and 13 million of us, but damn it, we aren't leaving without a fight! Here is something to fight for, to be passionate about, right?

Those young Germans had their own reasons, which make me sick and I don't condone, but I can no longer blame them for getting sucked in, with all those sharp military uniforms everywhere and all that drama and propaganda and guns. It's getting to me, it really is. A day doesn't go by that I don't think about aliya and contemplate signing up. Am I a product of government propaganda, or is this noble and real and heroic? I cannot tell. It feels right. Is this Zionism?

Are the settlers in the West Bank and Gaza in the wrong or the right? Again I can't tell, but they seem brave as hell, and they are inspiring, and I feel like they sleep better at night than I do. It is very romantic, living on the frontier. Maybe I am naive to consider real danger romantic, yet would millions of people show up to watch James Bond movies if he didn't put himself in danger? It is inherent in humanity. Everyone has a warrior inside. It is certainly appealing, so maybe I am justified in the desire to fight for this country despite the costs. I don't think I am unique in the need to live in a place where I am counted on to contribute. I want to serve something bigger than myself. What does America get from me? Sales tax?

If I came to Israel to have my heart and brain constantly kicking each other in the soft tissue over issues I never before considered, every penny has been well spent. This train of thought has no room for real politics. It is not about history or biblical rights or who is Prime Minister or anything in reality. It is about what quiets the caveman inside me. I must be a lunatic to get excited over Ariel Sharon quotes or Mossad stories every time I read the Post. I must be a lunatic. I should really find a hobby soon, or the next journal entry comes from Lebanon.

http://www.israelcentersf.org/Otzma99/jrnl/dr02.html