Jump to content

Talk:Argument from authority/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Notice of NEW proposed Lede

This new proposed lede (WP:LEDE) is ready to be incorporated into the article. Three of us (Endercase,MjolnirPants and David Tornheim), have worked diligently on this lede since March 22, 2017 here as proposed by Endercase here who welcomed all editors to participate here on March 22, 2017. Further notice to review the proposed lede was given on April 1, 2017 and again on April 16, 2017.

The three of us are agreement that it is ready to be incorporated (Endercase, David Tornheim MjolnirPants) and intend to replace the current lede with this version of 19:15, 16 April 2017.

If you disagree, or propose changes please let us know. It would probably be better to discuss objections at the project page and make mention on the talk page here if you do. We intend to make the change very soon if no objections are raised. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim and MjolnirPants: The change has been made! Endercase (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with both versions is that they don't talk about the other side enough. There's a deep divide on the issue and no consensus. I included the sources from both versions so now the page reflects that FL or Atlanta (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What rings clarion is the need for congruity on this vexing row. Whilst my own theorem is that each man must arrive at his own denouement that lies atop the apex of the mount of individual discovery that he must clamber atop; sometimes roughly and others smooth, to simply heed every Crier higher on the path calling "Turn away, ere you go down the wrong path" or "come hither, 'tis this way" is an abandonment of one's duty to seek truth undissembled. Yet, by pronouncing such an averment on this resource, would I not be violating my own creed? Shall I become the Crier, now braying "turn from all voices, turn from a chorus of voices; examine the path itself"? No -- I shall catalogue the proclamations of others, and in so doing, annotate the path rather than add another voice to the cacophony. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@PraiseTheShroom: I quite enjoy your choice of words. I agree that we must achieve congruity, how do you suggest we do so? I would also like your opinion and criticism on LEDE that I was responsible for ultimately adding here. I agree that each individual must seek and find their own authorities and truths but at the truths of others are worth pondering. We must become each Criers for our own views else our perspectives are in danger and falling out and being lost to the whole. All views have value and should be duly catalogued and discussed IMO, though here we must limit ourselves to "reliably" published citations and avoid "original" research. I will revert to the LEDE that was discussed among a larger group of peers and was approved. Though a rational and supported proposal by any party should be rationally evaluated upon such time as the proposal has been received. I dislike the tendency to change consensus based wording to the wording of a single peer (one voice). Thank you for you input thus far, I look forward to our future discussions. Endercase (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@FL or Atlanta: What "other side"? The LEDE that you and PraiseTheShroom have put in place says the same thing in a poor format as the one that was added after weeks of work. The LEDE was open for criticism during that entire time (see above notices). Please refain from changing the LEDE again without bringing up your proposed changes here for consensus. We must work together here or nothing will get done. Endercase (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No one's obligated to check random pages. The only ones that matter are the Talk. The fact you worked on something on one of your personal pages doesn't somehow make it official. What ultimately matters are the sources, and it looks like the ones you gave are mostly all in PraiseTheShroom's version. The "consensus" here is that version: one that discusses each side as per the sources, which is what we've got. This is WP:POLE in action: some people are big fans of appeals to authority, some people aren't. By all of us pushing, we've gotten a very balanced article. (Which honestly I'd say gives way too much credence to this fallacy). Reverting good moves towards a consensus version in favor of your pet version is disruptive editing. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, don't cite the sources in the way you did again. Many of them were out of context and one was a youtube video. Please refer to the guidelines for the proper addition of sources. Endercase (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
All the sources seemed good to me - what was "out of context"? And what's wrong with a video from a published historian and archeologist? Do the words change if he writes them on an article on a website instead of speaking them? If videos weren't acceptable sources, why would Wikipedia even have a citation category for citing A/V media? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Perfect Orange Sphere: Please strike your claim that Endercase is being disruptive by pushing his "pet version". This is a version that three of us collaborated on for a month, that we invited you to discuss, that we notified you of several times, and you did not show up or raise any objections, until we added it to the article, after having gained consensus. If anyone is being disruptive it is you. There is no consensus for the version that is there now. As for the sources, MjolnirPants has it right. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
And the work had what you would see as a good result - now the page fairly reflects your side with your sources. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever permanent, but everything has a lasting influence on the page as it develops. Personally I think the way it was before all this was better, but if you can't stand that version then at least we can both bear for this one to exist - even if it does entertain the notion that a blatant fallacy for the intellectually listless is a valid argument. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Perfect Orange Sphere: There are no "sides" among editors, be careful with such claims. I have seen editors get banned for far less. We (editors) are here to document the historical, provable facts. The current LEDE makes no controversial claims that are disputed by reliable sources. Even your own sources do not make the claims you appear to claim they do (that the appeal to authority is always wrong). Instead your sources appear to advise one to exercise caution when differentiating between an appeal to a false authority and a "true" one. I personally agree with your premise that there is no such thing as "true" authority; which means to me that all sources must be questioned and that all knowledge that isn't personally and repeatedly verifiable is less inherently reliable that knowledge that is. I do not understand the issue you have with the current LEDE as I feel it does reflect the concept that not all "authorities" are intellectually honest. I am fairly certain that the person in the YouTube video you cited would agree with the current LEDE (with possibly minor revisions), though if you can get them to come here we can know for sure. Endercase (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
There absolutely are sides with editors Endercase - especially on controversial topics like this one. You think that appeal to authority are powerful evidence for something's truth. I think they have nearly 0 evidential value. That puts us automatically on hugely different sides on this page. You would like a version that says they're strong arguments, I would like one that says they're weak arguments. What should happen is that this gets us a WP:POLE effect and we push the article to a balanced middle. But that doesn't work when instead of editing, you just go right to that revert button and insist on your preferred version and your preferred view and nothing else.
No controversial claims? Your claim that authorities agreeing on something makes it "highly likely" is not only extremely controversial but entirely false. Did it make the four humors highly likely? Did it make us having 48 chromosomes highly likely? Did it make geocentrism highly likely? Did it make spontaneous generation highly likely? Lots of sources, thankfully, see past this ridiculous notion that people believing something makes it likely to be true. Honestly I think the root of this for a lot of people is laziness: "yeah but if I can't just believe what they tell me then I'd actually have to examine an issue for myself - who wants to do that? That involves effort :(((". Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: Endercase, for the record, the man in that youtube video is neither a "published historian" nor a archeologist. He is a martial arts instructor and "TV/Film/museum consultant". He does not so much as possess a graduate degree in history, let along any body of historical literature. That being said, I am also quite sure he would agree with the drafted lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that such qualifications are important, but the fact remains that at least 2 editors consider him a reliable source. The major issue with their argument in my mind is that not even in the cited video does he argue that you can't trust anyone ever (it would undermine his own argument). They appear to claim that the appeal to authority is always wrong partially because, I think they think we think, it is an absolute statement (meaning if a recognized authority (such as the man in the YouTube video) says something then that thing is always right). I think the current LEDE reflects that even a recognized authority can be wrong and that all absolute appeals to authority are fallacious, as they claim. "A is very likely true" As such I do not understand the issue they are taking with the LEDE. I was careful to make sure their cited (if odd) view was accounted for and represented.
I do not understand the hostility Perfect Orange Sphere(POS) appears to think I intend to their beliefs. POS IMO needs to be more clear when describing the issue(s) they have with the current LEDE preferably with a line by line analyses. POS also need to familiarize themselves with policy a bit better. Their slight wp:canvassing (notice on a talk page) was risky. Their arguments are close to wp:meatpuppet IMO (as they appear to me to be fundamentally identical); as are ours to them I imagine. IMO POS need to make an effort to convey their opinion to us in a more empathetic manner as we appear to not understand the point or even underlying values of their argument.
@Perfect Orange Sphere: I do not intend any hostility, please explain the issues you have with the current LEDE like I am a stubborn child who knows little to nothing: use direct quotes and citations to source your argument so that I can understand where you are coming from and from what body of knowledge that you draw from. This is my humble request. I do seriously, wish to understand your argument. I think you are a good faith contributor and you may have a valid point, I may be just failing to understand it. Endercase (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that it says that authorities believing something means that it is highly likely that a thing is true. That is not only false (which alone isn't sufficient reason to remove it of course - WP:TRUTH and all) but we have plenty of sources that present a different view: that appeals to authority like that are fallacies that don't actually provide evidence for a claim any more than an ad hominem or an argument that begs the question would. That fact that a person or people believe something is not itself evidence that that belief is true - the data that lead them to that belief (assuming there was any) is the only thing that could provide evidence for it.
Does that kinda clear up what my view is, and where I'm coming from? Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Perfect Orange Sphere: I responded to this on your talk page by attempting to open a discussion. Per your beliefs the citation of sources is pointless, I am willing to talk about it ourselves though and attempt to prove the claims of "my" sources via logic and discourse. Endercase (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The assertion that there is a debate in philosophy over whether this subject is always a fallacy or not is both false, and OR. As implemented in the version Endercase reverted, it was evinced entirely by synthesizing material from references which are either inappropriate or which did not support the claim they were cited in. There are no sources at all stating that there is any serious debate over whether it is always fallacious to appeal to authority. The closest thing to it are sources which debate whether or not the fallacious use (appealing to a non-authority being represented as an authority) is fundamentally different from the legitimate use (appealing to an actual authority). Even that debate is rather low key, because the "there is no distinction" side tends to correctly point out that there are circumstances under which appealing to a legitimate authority can be fallacious (such as quote mining, or presenting a depiction of a minority view as the consensus). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Clarity in this case would be a mark against it as the issue itself is not clear from all the sources. Are appeals to authority solid arguments with force that you should believe automatically, or should you mistrust them and they ought to be avoided? Good sources say both so the page must as well. FL or Atlanta (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@FL or Atlanta: The current LEDE does say both...It is even divided into the true and fallacious types of arguments. One of the many issues I think is that the definition of "true expert" is an expert that is correct; so one of the arguments you claim we are leaving out does use circular logic to self justify and that is intellectually dishonest IMO. We avoid the use of that term in the current LEDE and thus represented the argument in a more intellectually honest manner. By showing that all experts can be incorrect and not making the claim (or even implying) that a consistently "true" or infallible expert exists we explain the argument in way that is more accessible to the reader, while maintaining reliably sourced material. If you would like I can post the entire discussion from my userpage talk page to here so you may review how we arrived at this LEDE. However, the discussion (that I fear you haven't read) is publicly available and locally hosted at the previously linked page. Endercase (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Endercase, do you find the sources unclear? I know David Tornheim doesn't seem to. Kleuske doesn't seem to find the sources unclear. Original Position, who has refused to participate here as long as FL or Atlanta is involved (and who has claimed and demonstrated a substantive formal education in philosophy) didn't seem to find the sources unclear. Lord Mondegreen never indicated they found the sources unclear, either. I surely don't find them unclear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: I do not find the sources unclear personally. I in fact think they all agree, even the ones cited by the our (3?-maybe we should do a checkuser?-wp:duck) objectors. But, I can understand their stance (if not their changes to the LEDE). One of the issues is that using a claim of authority to defend claims of authority is a bit circular, so I don't mind debating the users so that we have an acceptable (by them) proof for our LEDE. Endercase (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've found that only these two seem to think the sources are unclear. The list of editors who held the same view as them of this argument, until reading the sources and finding them to be quite clear (and convincing, considering their expertise) is rather exhaustive. I was the same, though to be fair I read the sources back in high school. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

More arguments

Endercase getting triggered

@PraiseTheShroom: I did not claim that the LEDE is currently unopposed, I claimed that the LEDE was added unopposed. To quote a movie/book I hold in high regard "There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now."-HGttG Whereas, Alpha Centauri is the talk page and 50 years is well over a month. I humbly request you that re-revert your reverted revert. Endercase (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I lack the capacity to oppose an endeavor that I have received no news of. I did not know of any changes and frankly had rather forgotten about the page until our colleague FL or Atlanta notified me of it not three days past. Had I been told I would have sounded the trump of my objections before this primer had been birthed. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@PraiseTheShroom: Per some interpretations of wp:canvass technically, you shouldn't be here now. It is a policy I do disagree with somewhat though as I have mentioned in the policy discussion regarding it here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:CANVASS (citation)
Yet here I am: what has gone before cannot be dislodged and heaved forward that we might change it when it comes 'round again. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The talk page is the proper location for notification according to policy (Alpha Centauri in the above example). Endercase (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Tornheim, I shall be forthright: I do not know how to utilize the watchlist. I wish to shine a beam on what I believe to be a misunderstanding: I am not of the opinion that a notification should have been provided. Let every man edit with or without whoever he pleases in whatever manner he pleases; provided all acknowledge that these chaotic tides will have their way with whatever you cast into them. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@PraiseTheShroom: Not to mention the LEDE you changed it to isn't even the original LEDE. This one is far worse. I am starting to suspect that all of you are at the very least meat-puppets if not sockpuppets. Your behavior fits the bill as outlined by the policy. Endercase (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Perfect Orange Sphere: To top it off this account keeps changing Notable Example to Notable Examples. There is only one example, using the plural is just incorrect. I am trying very hard to AGF but this simply looks like trolling. Maybe even trolling for the Lulz, seriously if you want to do that there are far better places for it. Heck, I'll even do it with you if you want, but on Twitter, not here. Endercase (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Endercase, plenty of pages have an "Examples" section with only one example - the implication is that more should be added. To clarify that, I've changed it to "Examples.
See? That's what it looks like to actually build a page rather than insist on your own version. Try more of that and less just daily reverting to your own version. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I responded to this in the edit history. Endercase (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

PraiseTheShoom

Reliably published citations (indeed, were you to ask for my sentiment, from the most reliable time when the true spirit of Science and Progress lighted the hearts of man at an apex never since quite matched) are clear on the subject. I refer you in the first to that penned by myself from the Medical Press and Circular. Permit me to furnish several more for the benefit of our inquiry:

Mr. Davenport's statement, ‘I cannot believe it possible for him to have been mistaken in any specimens coming under his observation,’ reminds one more of sentimental hero worship than of a sincere attempt to know the truth. The citation of ‘authority’ and ‘the opinion of the fathers’ is as obsolete in botany as it is elsewhere…

From http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2464353.pdf

There is no positive value in an argument of appeal to authority

From https://books.google.com/books?id=xVPLHOr1wJYC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115

The argumentum ad verecundiam is one of a dangerous character, since the history of science has taught us that men of the most comprehensive and erudite minds have at various times maintained the most crude and inconsistent dogmas.

From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2558028/pdf/provmedsurgj00318-0006.pdf

Any book which aims at scientific method should contain within itself all that is necessary to the immediate issues, and should avoid the appearance of anything like an appeal to authority…

From https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5jA1AQAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1

On such a subject no appeal to authority will avail to silence doubt. The minority may, after all, be right. What men call heresy proves sometimes to be the truth of God.

From https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xHYXAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1

The Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an appeal to the opinion of an authority which the person against whom the argument is used is bound to respect and follow…This argument can also hardly be said to prove any thing…It is used and very well serves to embarrass an antagonist. Beyond this it has but little force…”

From https://books.google.com/books?id=80j9nKZ8atMC&pg=PA336&lpg=PA336

A great number could be added to this host alongside these. Many are they that hold that the mere fact a man has conjectured an opinion or many men give it sway is not a sign of its truth, no matter how a reader may envision their docket. Should not this particular folio of the website give air to their words? Just because a man plugs his ears before a choir does not imply that there is silence.PraiseTheShroom (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@PraiseTheShroom: If you would like we may discuss our personal philosophies regarding the above via email.
On to your sources: 1)The LEDE you removed never claimed otherwise, it says specifically that "authorities" can be wrong. But, that they are likely correct (your source does not disagree with this). 2) First of all this is a botanist, but barring ad hominem attacks: the claim of no value in authority in and of itself devalues this citation (why does their authority matter? After all they themselves says it doesn't). Also if you don't believe in Arguments from Authority (AfA), why does editing Wikipedia even matter? Wouldn't editing a blog or even Twitter have the same effect? Also, "no positive value", what is that even intended to mean? Do any arguments have inherent value at all? 3)This does not disagree with the LEDE you removed, in fact it it could be used as citation in it. 4)This article has nothing to do with the scientific or socratic methods. 5)Never did the LEDE you remove claim otherwise, it simply stated that a docter is more likely to know what is wrong with you than a chef. 6)Wow you found a clergyman who dislikes AfA, odd without AfA no religion could exist beyond a few dozen followers who personally witnessed the miracles (power). Anyway, his claim that AfA can only be used to shame is patently ridiculous. For example you citing various "authorities" above does not shame me in the slightest and is only intended (per AGF) to convince another party (myself) of an apparently logical conclusion. Endercase (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
A fallacy does not make a thing one with the truth; the ad verecundiam is a fallacy of logic. The results of an inquiry elucidate the facts of a thing; the hands that performed it being merely trivia.
And aye, I cite botanists: my own field is kin to their's. (And some low fellows in fact have the nerve to deem it a submember!). We witness a gulf between philosophers and those natural philosophers we have christened scientists on this matter: a standard philosopher, their ideas being on the main beyond verification, many seek to rest in the comforting bosom of authority. Yet a natural philosopher's ideas are exposed to ruin at every turn: they must stand on their own or they shall be pulled down (or such would be the case in a handsomer world: all too often; yet not as often as the philosophers, do scientists seek to shield themselves from the baking sun of scrutiny by the shadow of a larger figure). I believe that to be one of the sources of the rift that divides the philosophers and natural philosophers in twain on this strong proof or this dismal fallacy.
The doctor vs. the chef is rhetorical sleight of hand; is the doctor an avatar of a different body of knowledge than the chef, taken form among us? A man of medicine's conclusions can only be trusted as far as the information on which they are based. It is a gullible man that does not ask his doctor "how is this known?". Any true craftsman will readily explain the grounds their base their conclusions on: a doctor should tell you "This study on the condition found this substance effective; on that I stake my wager that it shall prove so you with". One that replies with a hanging jaw and simply asks you to trust him is more likely than not taking your insurance's purse for a ride. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no rhetorical sleight of hand, simply probability. A docter is far more likely to know what is wrong with your body than a chef. Due to you beliefs about appeals to authority I'll leave it up to you to test this hypothesis. I agree that often a true expert will explain where their truth comes from and where it is based as well as how accurate it likely is. However, the understanding of some concepts is simply beyond the timely ability of some individuals as such we often refer the body of knowledge possessed by those who are more learned than us in specific areas. The LEDE I added claimed no more or less than this. Never did it say that authorities are always right nor did it encourage anyone to be a lemming. Nor did it say that authority's should be trusted when they fail to provide evidence, it simply said that a recognized authority is more likely to be correct than a layperson. I don't think that you even disagree with this point, I'm honestly not sure what in the LEDE (that I added) that you disagree with (if anything). Additionally, how should one detertermain the most likely truth behind events of the past? Without accounts (appeals to authority) or historians (appeals to authority) the past (outside of our own experience) is compleatly unknown. Endercase (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I shall be frank and forthright: when you say that one citing witness accounts is appealing to authority, I believe you show that you do not fully grasp the subject of this article. Citing the witness of a man is not an ad verecundiam. Should one of sound mind sincerely believe to have observed something, and can be shown to be likely to be honest, then we are informed that events transpired such that they genuinely left him with such and such impression: that provides us with evidence about conditions at the time of the event. (And is the sense of the reasoning that impartial witnesses or many witnesses are superior to those with bias or that stand alone: those who are evenhanded are much the more sure to prove honest, and a group of many is unlikely to share any unsoundness of mind or to be afflicted by the occasional unsoundnesses that one alone might experience). An ad verecundiam would be to counterdict the testimony of witnesses by bringing forth a so-called authority (and the measure of this is cultural respect rather than any objective assessment: it could be a man in a white coat in our culture or a witch doctor in the Dark Continent). Say that many bore witness to the fact that John F. Kennedy had expressed a certain sentiment before his death. To cite their testimony would not be an argument from authority. To then cite a professed expert on President Kennedy's life and say "this brilliant man counterdicts them; there can be no truth in what they say" would be the image of an appeal to authority. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@PraiseTheShroom:I very firmly disagree with this. The claim of witnessing an event in and of itself requires evidence. In the absence of the evidence the claim of witnessing is solely based on the apparent reliability (trustworthiness) of their claim of authority on the subject (the claiming that they in fact witnessed the historic event is a claim of authority). Whereas there is no such thing as uncontroversial evidence (IMO) all bits of evidence require a judgement based interpretation. All bits of information must be interpreted by an authority (that authority may be yourself) otherwise it is meaningless data with no direction or context. Without a qualitative measure provided by an experienced individual (an authority) there can be no context for interpreting the data in question. It is worth noting that experience is relative and so is the term authority and what one person considers an experienced individual (an authority) another will not. Endercase (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@PraiseTheShroom: Do you grasp the difference between the practical application of philosophy in science and the actual philosophy itself? Finding a list of scientists who say "appealing to authorities is a bad idea" is trivial because in science, appealing to authorities is a bad idea. But science is not everything. It's certainly not the only thing philosophy cares about. It's not the only thing people argue about.
For example, when one is arguing with a spouse, one's emotional state is very relevant. Your emotional reaction to the way your spouse says or does something is a perfectly valid point to raise. If you have a negative emotional reaction to something your spouse does, it's very valid to use that argument to advance the position that they should not do that anymore. However, if you're arguing about tax policy, your emotional reaction is a grossly inappropriate argument. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Just because appealing to an authority is an extraordinarily bad idea in science doesn't mean that every single philosopher who's outlined the argument and concluded that it's valid as often as invalid is wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Aye, MjolnirPants, I do: a scientist is a natural philosopher responsible for finding useful knowledge, a mundane philosopher is responsible for using as many words as possible while saying as little as he can. If science is what brings useful knowledge while philosophy is what gets a man nowhere (for when has an "advance" in philosophy ever come? It has not, and cannot: such a thing would be as if an "advance" in fiction, for philosophy is about fictions and little else), then if useful knowledge is what a man seeks then he should take the standards of science and avoid the pitfall of this fallacy. But if a man seeks to go nowhere then by all means let him follow the philosophers into their hole. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@PraiseTheShroom: I really suggest you read metametaphysics, it may help you change your perspective on this slightly. Endercase (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
a mundane philosopher is responsible for using as many words as possible while saying as little as he can. I thought that joke was funny the first hundred times I heard it, but it's completely useless in any serious discussion.
for when has an "advance" in philosophy ever come? It has not, and cannot: Analytic philosophy. It can, and has.
None of your comment actually addresses my point, let alone refutes it. All I can see is that you hold philosophers in contempt, which leads me to wonder why you would even bother editing a page about an argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


  • Actually, scientists rely on authorities just like everyone else does. Instructors teaching classes in science in high schools require certification. Classes in college are routinely taught by professors who have gone through years of extensive training by experts themselves, requiring a PhD in the field, which involves experts reviewing that PhD and a defense of that PhD in front of a table of experts (See Thesis#Thesis_examinations). Having parents that are both professors in science, both who obtained tenure, this is all too familiar. Tests provided in scientific departments are assembled by faculty who are experts in the subject field. Papers published in journals and text books in science are peer reviewed by experts in the field. The papers themselves cite numerous other papers written by others who are authorities in the subject matter. Any claim that science does not rely on authority is easily rejected.
I believe some of the confusion here has to do with major shifts in approach that occurred during the Enlightenment that persist to today, a shift that occurred just as much in religion and politics as in science. The focus came to be more on the individual. Martin Luther and the Protestants forced a major shift by Christianity insisting the the individual should be able to read and interpret the Bible directly (in their native language) rather than have to have all interpretations (of the latin text) judged by the expert priests and diocese. In particular relevance was the Protestants' rejection of papal supremacy--a kind of argument from authority (not entirely dissimilar to the rule of law Führerprinzip in Nazi Germany, where anything that Hilter said was the law (See Nazi_Germany#Law), which I imagine is common to many fascist authoritarian regimes.) In government, the idea of democracy started to take hold over the rule of autocrats. And so with science, a new focus on reason and proof rather than tradition. The new focus on the individual is part of the key of understanding American society and culture that focuses on individualism rather than collectivism, which I think can reasonably be attributed as one of the causes of the amazing technological innovation of the U.S. over other countries (although there are others causes like good copyright and trademark laws.) The U.S. also ranks in the middle on the the power-distance spectrum too. (See: Hofstede's_cultural_dimensions_theory#Dimensions_of_national_cultures)
So there is no question there was a shift in thinking during the Enlightenment in science to allow individuals to demand proof from authorities as is noted in one of the quotes of the article, following a shift away from authoritarian thinking. But to suggest that authorities and experts have zero value in assembling knowledge in science or any other field is absurd. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
My main issues with the other version are:
  • The use of a youtube martial artists as a source (which doesn't actually support the claim, and whose credentials were blatantly misrepresented here at talk).
  • The use of other, nominally reliable sources which do not support the claims they are cited to.
  • The presence of the OR claim that there is some sort of "divide" in the philosophical community; this is not supported by any source used or which I can find, see my top-level bulleted comment in the section above.
  • The obvious POV pushing tone of the lede. It's clearly trying to convince the reader that the argument is a fallacy (full stop), while admitting that "some" (meaning: every philosophical source to discuss the argument, and a large number of non-philosophical sources) claim that it is not.
The arguments put forth here at talk are, as I noted above in the response where I quoted PraiseTheShroom, vacuous and irrelevant to the subject being discussed. Indeed, there is nothing to discuss. There are weak sources (sources in the sciences and in education) which refer to the argument as a fallacy, but never once state that it is always a fallacy (a state which might be the result of the source holding the argument to always be fallacious, but which equally might be the result of a source which only cares about discussing fallacious uses of the argument). Then there are strong sources (definitional sources within the field of philosophy and logic) which unambiguously and unanimously state either that it is not always a fallacy, or that it is a fallacy under certain circumstances. There is no room to argue which view is correct, here.
As noted by the admin who intervened both last year and just recently, the claim that this is always a fallacy seems to be the result of a competence issue with respect to philosophy and logic. To further drive the point home, we have had two philosophy majors who have edited this page, both of whom have been driven from the page or the project by the disruptive POV pushing which has occurred here. Both of them unambiguously supported the "not always a fallacy" interpretation based upon their own education and expertise. Furthermore, both of them demonstrated in clear logical terms why it was not always a fallacy, citing the evidence of modern technology as being a result of our Standing on the shoulders of giants, a result which one would hope to ring true to any editor who is a fan of science.
PraiseTheShroom, I urge you not to edit war or engage in disruption over this, but to examine the sources presented for yourself. I can provide substantive quotes from a number of them, if you cannot get access. I assure you that any honest inquiry into the veracity of this argument will show, through logic both simple and complex, through formal notation and through lay description that it is perfectly acceptable to rely upon the expertise of an acknowledged authority in any field in which one lacks one's own expertise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you wrote. I don't see much substantive discussion going on from the beginning of the post, and most of the quotes are not from the appropriate WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Only "most"? I'm afraid we must be enemies now.. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Rampant Ludditism

I understand that some have laboured on a form of this vista which was here in bygone days not so far past. Yet such found a spouse, grew old, and has passed and is dead. Now its child is the heir, and it we must advance. To exhume a corpse time and time again yields naught. What say you, MjolnirPants? Shall we proceed, or must you and others ever insist upon regression? PraiseTheShroom (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

First, understand that I (and a large, large number of other Wikipedians) will not engage with you if you cannot speak in vernacular syntax. I do not have time to attempt to parse your attempt to twist English into a more poetic language.
Second, please read what I just posted above. Your entreaty ignores literally every single argument I, Kleuske, David, Original Position, Lord Mondegreen, Endercase and countless other have put forth against the claims of the version you prefer. You cannot ignore substantive argument and expect to achieve anything by engaging in these melodramatic and logically bereft appeals to emotion. Trust me, your words are not nearly as moving as you might think them to be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
What has risen clarion is that you and I diverge on the very soul of the article. As I voiced in the summary of the changes, I shall seek the input of many that we might know which path to proceed down. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, please strike the personal attack in the title, or I will template your talk page. Focus on content not editors. WP:AGF. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

PraiseTheShroom, you may not be aware of the fact that the two editors who composed the lede you are edit warring in have both been blocked from editing for a week ([1] and [2]), because this version misuses sources, uses unreliable sources, and engages in OR. If you continue to edit war over this, you are very likely to be subjected to similar sanctions. A long time ago, over a different issue, I decided that I would limit myself to two reverts per 24 hour period, so I will not revert again until tomorrow (at which point I doubt it will be necessary). But if you honestly believe that this version is better, you need to make a case for it at talk. Three editors collaborated on the other version (David Tornheim, Endercase and myself), it has been explicitly supported by a fourth (Kleuske), and it substantially reflects what two other editors (Lord Mondegreen and Original Position) have advocated for in the not-too-distant past, not to mention numerous other editors who have expressed a desire for a substantially similar version over the years. You are editing against consensus, and Wikipedia runs on consensus. The 'offer' in your most recent edit summary rings entirely hollow, as you have yet to even attempt to make a case for this version, despite wasting a significant number of words on this talk page with empty entreaties and vague disdain for philosophers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Well, now's your chance! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Chromosome Error was Primarily Based on Painter's Authority

MjolnirPants, what "other factors" are you referring to in your edit summary? We discussed this in depth and all the sources were unanimous: this error took root because of Painter's perceived authority. Obviously his error didn't spring forth from nothing but the reason his incorrect count was accepted was because of his supposed authority. There was no other issue that would make the error of 48 chromosomes in particular be accepted, and every source states that Theophilus Painter was the engine here. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We discussed this in depth Yes, we did.
all the sources were unanimous No, they weren't. This is what you were blocked for; misrepresenting sources. There were numerous factors, including technical limitations and the fact that other researchers published the same number. That being said, if you want to change "in part" to "for the most part" I will not object as some of the sources can be interpreted to mean that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
MjolnirPants Obviously error had to be possible in the first place: there can only be error if there's uncertainty. But the reason that particular error was spread rather than the position being "we're not sure" or some other chromosome number was Painter's authority, was it not?
But as for what you suggest, very well, that sounds agreeable: I'll modify the wording to that. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

two additions

As I explained in my edit summary, the first addition (from The Snake and the Fox: An Introduction to Logic) seems taken out of context. The very next sentence is "So it is knowing your subject that makes you an authority, not being an authority that makes you know the subject." The whole statement is true, but the argument put forth as an example ("God/Freud/Marx/Stephen Hawking said so. Therefore it's true.") doesn't follow the structure defined in a large number of books, as it's missing the "probably" qualifier. Indeed, if the example argument given were to be presented as a statistical syllogism, then the rest of the commentary (including the almost quoted portion) would be nonsensical. How can one be an authority (by knowing the subject) and simultaneously not be an authority (such that their opinion is not worth anything)?

The second addition, from the Argument of Mathematics simply isn't verifiable in the source. Searching the source for the word "authority" produces no results which make any claims about the history of the argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The first was not, at all, out of context. The section of the book is explicitly discussing informal fallacies: it says on page 33: "Such fallacies are often called informal". The example it then gives is "x is an authority and x says that P" logically proves P. The portion which says "statements are true or false because of what they say, not who says them" was a direct quote. So how precisely is any of that out of context or nonexistent in the source?
To be frank, the objection you voice does not even make much sense. What difference does minor word choice make? You're being extremely pedantic. The argument is invalid precisely when something like a "probably" qualifier isn't being used. Claiming the argument is, in itself, proof like that is fallacious.
As for the second, that's the result of poor research on your part. If you had read the page I linked to, you would have immediately seen the statement: "classically, the argument ad auctoritatem is considered to be a fallacy". In the future you need to read a source before removing it. TheLogician112 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
First, please indent your comments properly. See User:MjolnirPants/sandbox 1 if you need an example on how it works. It can be very difficult to follow the flow of a thread absent proper indentation.
Second, the first source presents an argument which is functionally different from, if similar to the argument described in the vast majority of reliable sources. The example given is not a statistical syllogism*, which is what the experts universally agree this argument is. That is pretty much the definition of "out of context". In addition, the author seems to be most active in parapsychology research, and the book looks as if it were made for primary school students. These may not disqualify it as a reliable source, but they certainly raise questions about it's suitability, especially when it is using such unusual phrasing (referring to "proof" when any philosopher knows that an argument is never proof) and apparently disagrees with more reliable sources. That being said, if you want to rephrase the addition to comment about the argument being proof, then I would be perfectly happy with that. Something like "One must be careful not to consider an appeal to authority to be proof of any claim." would be supported by the source, and uncontroversial enough that the issues with the source aren't worth worrying about.
*This is made clear by the responding text, which talks about proof, something which is bizarre for a philosophy text, but nonetheless makes it clear that the example cited is not intended to have an unspoken statistical qualifier.
Third, the last example doesn't show any hits for "authority." Had you provided a quote (which you are clearly capable of doing), that would have been verifiable. But now that I have found it, I can clearly see that it is a passing mention. Furthermore, the text is about mathematics, not logic, argumentation or philosophy. It is, for these purposes, a low quality source as shown by the discussion at RSN.
Finally, I want you to understand that this is not a threat, but simply me advising you: There are currently two editors under a week long block for pushing the POV at this page that the argument is always a fallacy. There is a third who received a 48 hour block and is about to be subjected to a TBAN for pretty much the exact same thing. When those blocks are up, I intend to request that Arbcom impose discretionary sanctions on this page, as it has been the source of false POV pushing for many years now. If you are attempting to "make it more clear how bad this argument is" or anything of the sort, you will be stirring up a hornet's nest. I strongly suggest that you limit any sources you want to add to this article to philosophical texts, specifically concerning argumentation. There is a rather long list in the archives of the talk page which contains many sources which are no longer (or never have been) used to say a great deal about the history and common views of the argument. For example, this edit looks pretty darn good to me, and doesn't seem to exist in the current article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Correction: The third editor I mentioned has already been subjected to a topic ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The example given absolutely is a statistical syllogism. It is literally:

X is an authority

X says P
Therefore P
That is a syllogism. How much have you studied logic?
And you reasoning that, because its example wasn’t a statistical syllogism that this would be out of context is nonsensical. If the source didn’t give any examples at all that would be irrelevant. Demanding a source give a specific example is being extremely pedantic, just like deleting my source for not using the term “authority” even though it clearly used a term for this fallacy that is right on the page.
Where are you getting anything about parapsychology? She has also written A Study of Self-Deception, part of the Studies in Philosophy series as you can see on Amazon here. This has been widely cited by many other reliable sources: see them listed here.
What you’re saying has heavy tints of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to attempt to disqualify this source. You’re saying “because it disagrees with the impression that I personally get from several sources, it is unreliable”. That is absurd: this is a published, widely cited writer. We derive the article from the sources, we don’t impose what the article presently says to try and exclude sources. (Unless we’re pushing a POV)
That said, I agree with rendering it “One must be careful not to consider an appeal to authority to be proof of any claim” and will do so.
As far as your claims about “something which is bizarre for a philosophy text” etc., you are not a philosopher. You do not dictate to philosophy texts what they do and do not say. Your own impressions of what they should say are irrelevant under WP:OR. We go by what the sources say and build an article from there.
I provided a page number and a link, and it is right there at the top of the page. Asking for more is absurd and frankly someone who needs it to be spelled out that clearly is out of their depth.
Which I think is something we see with your next statement: “the text is about mathematics, not logic, argumentation or philosophy”.
The source is called “The Argument of Mathematics”. It is all about argumentation as it relates to mathematics, which is a subset of logic and philosophy. I struggle to think of a work that would more clearly meet all of these!
Again, even a cursory review of the work would have shown this. Yet you clearly did not do this just like you did not even read the page which was directly cited.
And please, spare me the thinly-veiled threats. I understand this page has a long history of conflict (which, as you may recall, I attempted to help with), but that does not excuse you from actually needing to read the cited page before you erase revert an edit. You’re acting just as poorly as your opponent. I would remind you that both of were warned for your kneejerk reverts. They may have been worse about it but don’t think you’ll avoid their fate for long if you revert everything you even slightly dislike the wording of here. TheLogician112 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC) @MjolnirPants:
For the second time: Please indent your comments properly. This is not a difficult request.
That is a syllogism. How much have you studied logic? If you cannot fathom the difference between "A is probably true" and "A is true" then you are in absolutely no position to question anyone else's understanding of logic. I strongly suggest you stop doing so.
What you’re saying has heavy tints of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to attempt to disqualify this source. You must be the hundredth newbie editor to try that one on me. I suggest you re-read those two pages and note how they are intended as a guide to handling content, not a guide to judging the reliability and applicability of sources.
Asking for more is absurd and frankly someone who needs it to be spelled out that clearly is out of their depth. This is called a personal attack and if you continue to make them you will be blocked from editing. That is a threat, by the way. Now that you can see what a threat looks like, perhaps you will do a better job of recognizing them in the future.
As far as your claims about “something which is bizarre for a philosophy text” etc., you are not a philosopher. I'd like to see your proof of that.
The source is called “The Argument of Mathematics”. It is all about argumentation as it relates to mathematics, I've added emphasis to this quote to see if you can spot the relevant detail without me explicitly pointing it out. I don't have much hope, as your argument rests upon the lack of this recognition.
(which, as you may recall, I attempted to help with Indeed. I also recall that you were asked to stop volunteering at DRN until you learned enough to do so with some competence.
And please, spare me the thinly-veiled threats. I have shown you what a threat looks like in this comment. In the future, I suggest than you not take comments that begin with "this is not a threat" as a threat, as it runs contrary to our behavioral policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The probably true vs. being proven to be true issue is exactly my point: the argument can provide reason to believe something but it can’t be used to prove something in the logical sense. Bear in mind that fallacies often are somewhat veiled: you won’t hear someone say something like “X is an authority therefore P is logically necessary”, but something like “X says P is logically necessary” being used as the essence and totality of an argument takes places rather often.
But let’s not get sidetracked: the exact topic under discussion there was whether the example was a syllogism or not. What grounds are you even denying that it is a syllogism on? Without quoting anyone else, can you tell me what your understanding of a “syllogism” is?
If I’m the hundredth editor to point out a certain flaw in you, does it not ever occur to you that the reason could be that you legitimately have that flaw? You’re bizarrely taking certain words from sources and demanding other sources use their precise wording. And you’re making my exact point, once again. You’re applying that bizarre vocabulary text to sources in an inexplicable attempt to decide which are good and which are bad. Not only are you showing heavy tints of those two, but of WP:OWN as well. Down to deleting sources because they don’t use the word “authority” but the Latin instead. It is all frankly very weird and strikes me as an amateur. Let me ask again: what has your study of logic consisted of?
It is not a personal attack to point out that someone who needs exact quotes to make their way through texts about logic and argumentation even when pages are specified and linked might not be the best fit for editing logic and argumentation pages. I personally hold that a basic level of competence is required.
As for my proof that you are not a philosopher? Your userpage indicates that you work with computers. Is that not so?
From your perspective, it would be as if I were to go onto pages about programming and insist that only sources that used CamelCase variable names were acceptable because I could show several coding textbooks that used CamelCase variables. It would be very bizarre behavior that looks like someone who knows the words sources use but simply does not grasp the wider concepts behind them. (In a similar manner to the inadvertent quantum mysticism you see from people who have read popular science headlines about the subject but don’t actually understand what any of it represents under the hood)
Again you illustrate that with your issues about mathematics. Mathematics is a subset of logic: it is, in essence, looking at the outcomes of various systems of axioms.
(And for the record, I think indenting a conversation with just two people is what would make it harder to follow. With one person’s being indented and the other’s not, it can go indefinitely rather than moving over and over closer to the edge until it has to be reset. Then you wind up with a spikewall looking thing which doesn’t do anybody’s eyes any favors) TheLogician112 (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC) @MjolnirPants:
The probably true vs. being proven to be true issue is exactly my point: the argument can provide reason to believe something but it can’t be used to prove something in the logical sense. Your point in your last comment was that the example given is the same as the argument described in this article. It isn't. It's a specific and uncommon variant of this argument. You then (originally) took a statement made about that variant, and applied that statement to the argument as a whole, which is a synthesis of original research and a published claim as well as a compositional fallacy. That doesn't belong in the article. However, there was a claim within that source which does apply to the argument as a whole, which is that the argument is not proof. To be perfectly honest, it is bleedingly obvious to anyone with even the faintest familiarity with rhetoric that an argument is never proof of anything. One needs an actual formal proof to prove something (though arguments sometimes contain formal proofs). If this argument were proof of anything, the opening sentence would have said it. So I'm not sure why you would feel the need to add it to the article unless you're trying to turn the article in an argument that one shouldn't appeal to authorities. But whatever, I'm fine with it because it's verifiable, factual and sourced.
But you must remain aware that we are an encyclopedia. We are descriptive, not proscriptive. This article should not paint the argument in either a good or bad light, it should merely describe it by summarizing the claims of reliable sources. So really, this sort of statement belongs in argument.
As for my proof that you are not a philosopher? Your userpage indicates that you work with computers. Is that not so? Oh, where do I begin with this one... First off, I'd like to see your proof that philosophers never work in computing (that's going to be very difficult to pull off). Once that's done, I'd like to see your proof that I'm not simply lying about what I do. After that, you can provide me with some proof that I'm not delusional about what I do. Finally, when all that is done, we can return to original original argument, which was that I have no way of knowing what is common for a philosophy text as I am not a philosopher. You can then show me the proof that only philosophers could know that. Question; have you ever heard of the first rule of holes?
From your perspective, it would be as if I were to go onto pages about programming and insist that only sources that used CamelCase variable names were acceptable because I could show several coding textbooks that used CamelCase variables No. You really don't understand what I'm telling you, do you? This is the same basic problem as I just described above regarding your first edit based on the Snake and the Fox: Simply because a statement is true in mathematics does not mean it is true in logic or rhetoric. They are closely related, but different subjects. Mathematics is a subset of logic, which is relevant to and related to rhetoric and argumentation. All of them are a subset of philosophy. A is a B. A has quality C. D is also a B. Therefore, D has quality C. Do you see the problem there?
Let me put it another way. Math and argumentation are both subsets of logic. Math has the quality that appealing to authority is widely considered to be wrong. Therefore, argumentation has the quality that appealing to authority is widely considered to be wrong. Do you see the error? Once again, it is a compositional fallacy, and not directly supported by the source without you interpreting the source to mean something different from what it states. It's false (not just fallacious) because math also has the property that any hypothesis within it can (in theory) be proven. Furthermore, it has the property that a large number of the most fundamental hypotheses about it have been proven, and can be proven by any competent mathematician at almost any time. The thing that makes appealing to authority wrong is that, in mathematics (indeed, as is the case when all parties involved are arguably authorities in the subject of discussion) it is completely pointless. Authorities carry little to no weight because the parties arguing are no less of an authority. So if someone cannot prove something on their own, nor evince it in some other way (such as the presentation of clear evidence), then citing a colleague proves nothing.
Compare that with arguments between friends, formal debates, internet flame wars, etc. In the vast majority of those cases, the parties are not authorities in the subject. They lack the ability to produce convincing evidence or formal proof. But, they can refer to those authorities who have actually produced evidence or proof. And they are usually (hence the statistical syllogism) correct.
Finally, regardless of what you think about indentation, the community disagrees. You are not engaging in discussion here for your own benefit, but for the purpose of participating in a collaborative project. This means that when it comes to things like how to format your discussions, one follows the community guidelines because not doing so is disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean that it is a "specific and uncommon" variant of the argument? The only variation is in minor word choice. What two variants are you talking about?

That said, I exactly agree: it should reflect the sources. You are making my precise point: excluding reliable sources because you personally interpret them as being at odds (over very minor details that are actually perfectly congruous, but even ignoring that) is what violates the standards of description rather than proscription. Anything said by reliable sources (until the article starts getting too long or detailed to excess ofcourse) is fair game for inclusion.

Your statements about your career are simply bizarre. You have never that I have found claimed to have received a degree in philosophy or a related field, and all your statements about your work and studies that I can see refer to computers. The strongest sign, though, is the fact that you have to issue a nonsensical challenge to proof a negative rather than simply writing “I am a credentialed philosopher”. There is a world of difference between needing to prove a negative and showing that there is no reason to believe something. Can you prove that I’m not an omniscient being and that the acceptance of all my edits is crucial for humanity’s future? No. But there’s no reason to believe such a thing, and the fact that that negative cannot be proven is worlds away from there being a reason to believe it. This is, once again, a very basic thing in philosophy and argumentation.

Whether and when an argument is valid or not valid does not differ depending on the subject, that is absurd. When you are analyzing the arguments themselves, it is the properties of that specific argument you are talking about. Validity stems from the premises and how they relate to the conclusion. The subject is just what you’re plugging into those slots, as it were. Does the validity of modus ponens change depending on your subject?

The law in your reasoning is that you’re talking about "widely considered". That is a statistical statement about a group of people, not a statement about the properties of the argument itself. The argument has no properties that involve consideration, those reside in individuals doing the consideration. That is, again, very very basic stuff that any basic philosophical examination of properties would state.

I see that it makes you upset, but I am not trying to be offensive when I say that you are out of your depth on philosophy. It is simply a frank assessment of talent. (Which does not reflect on you as a person: no one can be an expert on everything. I’m sure that you would be far more useful than I would on any article about the workings of computers.) Competence is required and, honestly, you are not showing that in this discussion. @MjolnirPants: TheLogician112 (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not engaging you any further. Your argument is beyond poor, and you cannot comport yourself with even the most basic decorum expected of an editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argument_from_authority/Archive_9&oldid=1154041381"