Replies

I am specifically appealing to expert testimony. This is how knowledge is typically gained. We end up having to trust experts to some extent. Here is the definition of Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): definition: While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if: (i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject, (iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm Appealing to expert opinion does not always fit this fallacy, but I suppose you could push the point if you wanted. I was primarily appealing to expert analysis, that even though there is not total agreement among experts, there typically is a congruence of opinion that eschews isolationism. You should also realize that this was *not* part of an argument of mine. I actually poised my reply in the form of a question -- waiting for you to answer the question.

Okay, point granted, but still respectfully rejected.

As you well know, Appeal to Authority is still a logical fallacy, even in the case of "relevant" experts, if it incorporates an Appeal to Popularity fallacy -- as yours did.

Fifty Million Frenchmen can be wrong. So can fifty million foreign-aid lobbyists whose jobs depend upon bringing home the bacon for their local tin-pot dictator.

The object of debate is finding the Morally Right policy, not merely "appealing to Authority" (or even "appealing to popularity", in those cases where you can find enough bought-and-paid-for foreign lobbyists whose expertise is "relevant" enough for you to cleverly evade the direct accusation of an Appeal to Authority fallacy).

were Mexico hostile to the US, and building nuclear weapons, I might consider a pre-emptive stike. I am a believer in Defense, and Defense can include Pre-Emption. ~~ Oh, then we may be arguing about different points. If this is your stance, then we may actually be much closer in viewpoint than I realized. I was under the impression that you were a STRICT isolationist. I'm going to call it a night and pick this up tomorrow...

If you wanted to ask me whether or not Israel's 1981 strike on the Osirak nuclear reprocessing plant was justified, I will tell you that, "well, Israel bloody-well believed that it was, and I can understand that." Provided that US blood and treasure are not involved, I fully understand that foreign nations (such as Israel) will undertake those pre-emptive military actions they feel to be crucial to their defense, and I understand and defer to that.

I am a Non-Interventionist as concerns my country, the USA, in conflicts thousands of miles from my borders.

I am a Friend of Israel, and if she wants to knock down a hostile nuclear reactor in the region where she lives, I can understand that.

But it has next-to-nothing to do with my family's blood and taxes where I live.