And speaking of "appeal to authority," how many people here can explain the logic behind using an exponential decay function in radiometric dating? Can you derive this yourself? Can you list the assumptions necessary to derive it?
Just wondering...
Of course all of the evolutionists should be able to source this, not just a few of them.
I'd hate to think that some FReepers were...um...hypocrites?
Fancy use of big words. It certainly does sound scientific. You must know what you are talking about. But, just so I can be sure, what's your degree in?
Yes. Yes I can.
An interesting point, and one that demands the attention of "Mr. Logic." ;)
In truth, the article posted is wrong on this point, as far as it goes. The appeal to authority (argument ad verecundiam) is really only a logical fallacy when it is an appeal to an inappropriate authority. It is perfectly legitimate for me to cite Doctor Stochastic (and you) as authorities on the mathematics of radiometric dating, assuming I examine your credentials and find you to be bona-fide experts in this matter. This does not mean that you must be correct, of course - even experts are mistaken or wrong sometimes.
The logical fallacy arises, as I said, when we make the inappropriate appeal to authority. For example, assuming for a moment that you are an expert on the mathematics of radiometric dating, it would be inappropriate to cite your opinions on, say, constitutional law, and to then give those opinions undue weight based on your expertise in some other field. You are, of course, entitled to your opinions about constitutional law, but as a non-expert in that field, your opinions have no more weight than those of any other non-constitutional law scholar.
But, if we were to rule out this sort of argument entirely, we might as well stop discussing much of anything, since virtually no-one is a bona-fide expert in everything. Since we are fairly specialized these days, we must be permitted to refer to the arguments and logic and conclusions of experts in fields outside our own. It is still incumbent upon us all to examine the credibility of experts, and to examine arguments for obvious logical flaws, of course, but beyond that, all of us have little choice but to accept the conclusions of actual experts in some fields - which fields those are will vary from person to person, naturally.
If I can't explain it, does that make the process any less credible? Just asking....
Az
Good question.
Can you list the presuppositions/assumptions necessary for me to believe that people other than myself have minds? I mean ... I know *I* have a mind, but how can I prove that other people have minds? How do I know that you all aren't just robots?