humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Reggie Perrin wrote:
> 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,

And apparently commonly poorly explained because I've read "appeal
to authority" explained differently in several different locations. I
never bothered to click your link the first time as I thought I knew
the fallacy... another error on my part.... but your link does make
far more sense than previous version's of this fallacy I have read. I
was surprised to learn something I already thought I knew!

I still don't think it is applicable in this instance as who's the
best chance of being the expert on life but the smartest of the smart?
Of course even that can be debated but I know who my choices are. Most
modern famous physicists of note seem to have a world view that is
closer to Einstein's than Rands (which is pretty close the functional
reality of the system we live in today rather than other unproven
systems)...... so I tend to trust them and leave others the burden of
proof to convince me their system(s) would work better.

Again people will all sorts of legal/philosophical training
dramatically disagree on all sorts of things)... it's clearly not a
clearly defined science (although every usually system says it
is).....but I suppose it could be argued it's a fallacy for me to
bring up Einstein depending how one weights the concept of morality.

I personally am not opposed to change (left or right) when the
arguments are eloquent and lethal violence is not involved, but at
every step care should be taken.. I like to think this is rational as
a civilization is an immensely complex thing. If we break it.... no
old man in the sky will later save us.