If appeal to authority is considered a logical fallacy what's the point of asking for a "source"?
If appeal to authority is considered a logical fallacy what's the point of asking for a "source"?
If appeal to authority is considered a logical fallacy what's the point of asking for a "source"?
Because earned authority is respectable while the appeal to "Because it's what the ruling class says so for reasons" isn't.
If you got sick would you ask for a doctor or a priest?
>"earned" authority
kek
>no authority is earned or warranted
Post modern Marxist tier thinking
Let me guess think the Academy Awards is something other than israelites giving themselves awards?
No, Marxist thinking is declaring only loyalists to the party "experts" and anyone who disagrees with party lines "dangerous disinformation conspiracy theorists"
>ignores the post modern part of the line
Great reading comprehension there, tardo
"Post modern marxism" is redundant
Pomo is late 20th century.
Incorrect
Source?
>Post-Marxism can be considered a synthesis of post-structuralist frameworks and neo-Marxist analysis, in response to the decline of the Left after the protests of 1968
so it's marxist, there's no "non-marxist" postmodernism
Incorrect
you've already been debunked, no bunkbacks
I accept your concession
You're already concussed
You've already conceded and only continue to prove that it was the smart thing to do
I am a certified doctor, and you've been concussed (the source is me)
Yes? This doesn't mean everyone has to agree on who is a worthwhile authority on a subject.
When your guy is the authority it's because of power and politics. When our guy is in power it's because of merit. Any questions?
*raises paw*
>implying your affliction wasn't ordained by God
>If you got sick would you ask for a doctor or a priest?
A priest's services are not covered by health insurance.
Then again: in our angry modern world, neither are many doctors' services.
>A priest's services are not covered by health insurance.
Maybe in your third world dystopia. Here in South Sudan we live a more civilized life
Define earned authority
What the fuck do you think it means?
The appeal to authority is only fallacious if you are appealing to an authority figure whose authority isn't relevant to the thing in question.
>coffee is good for you, this astronomer guy says so
Fallacious.
>milky way and andromeda are on collision course, this astronomer guy says so
Not fallacious.
yo mama's fellatious
Are you gonna learn about every single piece of human knowledge up to a PhD hyper autist level?
If the answer is no, then you may have to chose to outsource some of your thinking to "experts" whether or not you are going to trust these experts is at your own discretion and ability to reason about them.
This is a good rule to follow
/thread
however you still have to be careful because even experts in the field can be biased or have an agenda
Asking for a source is an appeal to authority in the fallacious sense, in the way its used on message boards across the internet. It's a lazy way to dismiss someone's point.
"Source?" is not an argument, it's just asking to confirm whether the person you're talking to is making shit up or not.
>source?
99% of people who ask for a source actually want a source or have any intention to respect anything you provide. it's literally just sealioning.
That's bullshit which is perpetuated by people using "source?" ironically. Like if I asked you "source?" for your claim about it being 99% of people, in that case it would be obvious that I'm just trying to rile you up.
Source?
Thanks for the demonstration, sport. Couldn't have done it without you.
That's not a valid source.
No source hmm? Opinion dismissed.
>?
>99% of people who ask for a source actually want a source or have any intention to respect anything you provide
Correct.
If I really wanted a source I certainly wouldn't write >source? here
It doesn't matter how you word it, there's always a 99% chance that you'll get a reply with a basedjak and the >source? copypasta.
This, it's the internet, if you actually wanted a source you would just google it, not waste time typing out a post asking for a source, solving a captcha, hit "post", and sit around waiting for them to soijak you for being technologically illiterate.
Everyone who has ever asked for a source online has done so in bad faith.
>search for a source
>don't find any
>say it in the thread
>guy says that you just suck at dyor
I guess the most sensible solution is not to talk to people online.
You don't do that, you go "SOURCE???" because you overdose on hrt
The reason I don't do that anymore is that the responses I got were low effort memetic trash like your response right here.
Nah much simpler to say something like:
>There isnt a single source that supports this
That usually nakes them post it.
>NO YOU CANT JUST ACCUSE ME OF MAKING SHIT UP ON AN ANONYMOUS BOARD
Asking for a source is an antidote to the appeal to authority, which can be a fallacy when you blindly assert something by citing someone who can't necessarily be trusted. Like if you said the US government said vaccines are good therefore it's true or Alex Jones said vaccines are bad therefore it's true
Ah. An astute observation. If we wish to establish the veracity of a statement, we must utilize our own reasoning, not refer to unreliable sources. That is the very essence of rational thought. Therefore, I advise against citing sources at all.
Fuck off, Descartes.
Same. I try to let the soundness, cogency, demonstrability, reproducibility, and overall likelihood of a person's statements speak for themselves instead of being obsessed with "sources" and "credentials". In the rare event I really need to see "credentials". Guess what? I don't respect the credentials, integrity, or expertness of people who think there's 65 genders.
kekking at you
funny thing is retards like OP are the first ones to scream "TRUST HIM!" and bring up their favorite writer/leader/priest.
>i havent accomplished anything by myself
hmm, too honest, yet too stupid.
>We live in a non-rigged meritocracy.
>>We live in a non-rigged meritocracy.
didnt said that, lmao
tell me how you havent accomplished anything by yourself again, OP, i am interested how non-functional you are.
I am serious.
>inb4 system is corrupt
yeah yeah i know, it is not an excuse to be uneducated thug and wearing gangsta pants.
>absolutely zero claims of fraud that have been substantiated in courts loyal to the opposition, who have a vested interest in proving fraud where it exists
Lmao the term is almost over, get the fuck over it
>Justifies a logical fallacy by invoking another logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
>The reason I don't do that anymore is that the responses I got were low effort memetic trash like your response right here.
Appeal to authority is saying your argument is true because an authority said it’s true. A source typically has supporting evidence in it.
retards don't understand what evidence is
And what is the supporting evidence? An authority saying it is true.
You can read academic papers beyond the abstract, you know.
It's a scam actually, they don't even exist behind the paywall.
>he doesn't have access through his academic institution
Skill issue.
>being in academia
ngmi
>he doesn't use sci hub
Okay, but how do you know what it says is true?
>hurr just replicate it yourself
Come on now.
>"source"?
if something actually exists, and not a figment of imagination, then it actually exists somewhere outside of a single man's text.
makes you think, huh, retard OP?
"Logical fallacies" are bullshit invented by people butthurt that they kept getting BTFO in debates.
Authorities are only bad when it's YOUR people who are in charge. When our people are in charge we're allowed to say "It's true because the authorities say it's true". Any questions chud?
If you're making a claim about the world it needs to be backed up empirically since that's the only way we can know about the world.
a good source for facts about the world is one which obeys empiricism like the scientific method.
>You should never take someone's word on something. Believe an experiment was conducted just because someone said it was. Even though you've never seen any of this or seen any evidence of its reproducibility. (Except these people's word. You're supposed to believe whatever they say.)
you shouldn't take a single study's word for anything.
most scientists will tell you this.
"Anti-authority" people are very rarely anti-authority in principle. They're only against Catholic authorities. Once they gain power their tune very quickly changes.
Giving a source allows it for the reader to judge the source.
I judge all external sources invalid
It only applies when they ONLY rely on an expert. Just dismissing them and their credentials entirely (what /misc/tards and schizos do) is just silly and bad faith.