Re: Ray Martinez
- From: "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:14:16 -0600
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Jun 2, 4:01 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:snip
You really don't understand how science works, do you? The argument is
from data ("because you can go out and see it for yourself"). You are
also misusing the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority, which
describes reliance on statements of experts on matters beyond their
field of expertise (e.g., an advanced degree in, say, Educational
Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about
etymology or archaeology).
Yes it does. If they are making such statements then their higher
degree makes them qualified.
No, having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak
about an unrelated subject.
You do not understand what "Argument from Authority" (AFA) is.
Yet he's correct, and you get it wrong.
If that were true then Richard Dawkins cannot speak about genetics or
Daniel Dennett about evolution in general.
Because Dawkins and Dennet have studied genetics and evolution, why not?
Neither have degrees in
these fields but both are eminently qualified to speak authoritatively
in these fields.
But they have *STUDIED* those fields, even if their academic degree is in
I could provide even better examples but will cease
for now. AFA is when a fact is challenged and the only defense is
Again, credentials mean very little, when the person is speaking about a
subject he or she is unqualified to speak.
I might add: evolutionists in general have no idea what AFA is. You
are not being singled out.
You are wrong yet again. You are the one who is wrong about argument from
authority, and it shows.
I also might add: Daniel Dennett is the brightest evolutionary scholar
in the world (in my opinion).
And your opinion means what?
When Gould was alive he held that title
(in my opinion with Ernst Mayr coming in as a close second).
Again, Ray, your opinion is worth.... well.. nothing.
On the other hand, an appeal to authority is
perfectly valid when the authority in question knows what they are
talking about - for example, John Harshman knows a hell of a lot more
than you or I about the evolution of ducks, so it is perfectly valid to
take advantage of his lifetime of study in the field if we were
John is also (in my opinion) qualified to speak about genetics, human
evolution, and the history of Darwinism.
Again, your opinion is worthless.
It is absurd to say otherwise - a mockery of our system to establish
facts. In the old days if you were the Pastor of a Church you were the
biggest and smartest man in town - qualified to speak about
Which would be wrong then, as it is now. My father was a pastor of
several churches, and as intelligent, and wise as he was, he was not the
"biggest and smartest man in town". He was wise enough to know what he
didn't know about.
I happen to know a bit about geology and stream
Which you will ignore soon.
snipping more things Ray avoids...
- Re: Ray Martinez
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Ray Martinez
- Prev by Date: Re: Ray Martinez
- Next by Date: Re: Ray Martinez
- Previous by thread: Re: Ray Martinez
- Next by thread: Re: Ray Martinez