2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Oh good lord. Appeal to authority is a form of argument. NOT A FALLCIOUS FORM OF ARGUMENT, just a form of argument. It is only fallacious if the authority does not have the relevant expertise.
Unbelievable.
These are the types of complete misunderstandings that happen when someone pretends to have knowledge about a subject (basic logic) but is really just rapidly googling @#*!.
Oh good lord. Appeal to authority is a form of argument. NOT A FALLCIOUS FORM OF ARGUMENT, just a form of argument. It is only fallacious if the authority does not have the relevant expertise.
Unbelievable.
These are the types of complete misunderstandings that happen when someone pretends to have knowledge about a subject (basic logic) but is really just rapidly googling @#*!.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy when the authority in question is not qualified on the subject for which they're being cited. Quoting Stephen Hawking when arguing about biology could be legitimately criticised as "appeal to authority". But right wing dipshits see the words "appeal to authority fallacy" and think it just means "appeal to any authority" because we all know how what right wingers think of people who are actually educated or trained in something, these so-called experts. Pfft.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy when the authority in question is not qualified on the subject for which they're being cited. But right wing dipshits see the words "appeal to authority fallacy" and think it just means "appeal to any authority" because we all know how what right wingers think of people who are actually educated or trained in something, these so-called experts. Pfft.
Precisely. He claims you "committed" the sin of making a sound argument because he has no idea what he's talking about. Appealing to authority is a perfectly acceptable type of argument as long as the authority is qualified to speak authoritatively on the relevant subject matter.
The roving clown show here keeps just proving my point that people that are not educated on a subject should really just shut up and listen and stop trying to butt in. It's Dunning-Kruger in action.
And with that, I'm going to bed. I've got a lot of sitting around to do tomorrow. Thanks for keeping me sane in these threads to those of you that do so.
Appealing to authority generally means you don't understand what you're taking about.. Because otherwise you'd just explain it
Appealing to authority is a perfectly acceptable type of argument as long as the authority is qualified to speak authoritatively on the relevant subject matter.
how does one surmise the conditional without assuming the argument from authority? logic is a flat circle
The roving clown show here keeps just proving my point that people that are not educated on a subject should really just shut up and listen and stop trying to butt in. It's Dunning-Kruger in action.
clowns! shut up and listen! dunning-kruger! i'm sold
And with that, I'm going to bed. I've got a lot of sitting around to do tomorrow. Thanks for keeping me sane in these threads to those of you that do so.
thank you for standing guard as long as you did. sleep well
There must be some domain where sex and gender are completely decoupled or it is logically impossible for someone to be the male sex and exhibit female outward performance (and vice versa). They could only be 'partially' exhibiting outward performance as the contrary sex. If there is no domain where they are completely decoupled, then one is logically dependent on the other (in the same way that science is ultimately dependent upon logic/math).
So, please state what aspect of the domain 'outward
As I stated, gender originates from the soul and is accessed via the self. When I say I have a masculine side and a feminine side, I’m accessing those aspects of gender through the self. This is independent of bio sex.
I’m in favor of re-establishing a tight link between bio sex and gender identity as a social norm, but that’s not because gender doesn’t transcend biology - it does. Still, there is no such thing as a “true gender” identity (as every soul is dual gendered), so there’s no reason to discriminate against your bio-sex-gender.
Appealing to authority generally means you don't understand what you're taking about.. Because otherwise you'd just explain it
How do you see this appeal to authority playing out? If I say "the difference between a crocodile an an alligator is in their colour, snout shape and jawline" then this is fine, but if I say "the difference between a crocodile and an alligator is in their colour, snout shape and jawline [ref: Wikipedia]" then this is an appeal to authority?
If I go and read up on the difference between sex and gender on Wikipedia and then come back here and answer his question in my own words then this is no longer an appeal to authority because I've demonstrated an understanding of the source material? Surely just paraphrasing it doesn't mean it's my own ideas. It's still someone else's work. Probably written by or sourced from an expert on the subject. An authority, if you like.
Gender isn't even a scientific concept, and there certainly isn't universal consensus, so "expert opinion" in this context is absolutely a fallacious appeal to authority.
Gender isn't even a scientific concept, and there certainly isn't universal consensus, so appealing to experts in this context is absolutely a fallacious appeal to authority.
Ok, well, if your argument is that there are no authorities in the world on this topic, then that's a different argument to the one you were making. I doubt it's true, but I'll let someone else debate this with you, as I said, it's not a topic I know much about.
As I stated, gender originates from the soul and is accessed via the self. When I say I have a masculine side and a feminine side, I’m accessing those aspects of gender through the self. This is independent of bio sex.
I’m in favor of re-establishing a tight link between bio sex and gender identity as a social norm, but that’s not because gender doesn’t transcend biology - it does. Still, there is no such thing as a “true gender” identity (as every soul is dual
See now this is an argument, or at least intriguing as hell. Well done.
But if gender transcends biology, there should be no need for biological transition, right?
Ok, well, if your argument is that there are no authorities in the world on this topic, then that's a different argument to the one you were making. I doubt it's true, but I'll let someone else debate this with you, as I said, it's not a topic I know much about.
Fair enough, you nosed your way to a question I asked the other person, so I went with it.
Appealing to authority generally means you don't understand what you're taking about.. Because otherwise you'd just explain it
We should also be far more wary of people who just tell us the answer rather than those who can explain the answer and ideally tell us how to work it out for ourselves*. It's a problem for science (and maths etc) is that that has often become effectively impossible.
So much comes down to who we trust.
* as treat for D2 I shall mention that I have made this point in praise of 2+2's poker books many years ago.
In the sense that I agree with the statement that challenges to established science should probably come from experts and I disagree with the statement that challenges to established science should only come from experts, I would say it changes enough to make the statements different in the ways that it counts.
So if science is not completely decoupled from math and logic, do you also think that science doesn’t mean anything just like you think gender doesn’t mean anything?
We’re kind of jumping ahead by discussing whether trans people can exist when we still haven’t closed the discussion on whether sex and gender are defined independently of another, which I gave my definition of how I’m parsing that out.
What do you mean by "mean anything?" Do you mean "contains no value?" I think math/logic entails science and gender (male or female outward performance as you defined it) is entailed by sex in the same way. Embedded in the definition of "outwardly performing male" is the definition of "male". You can point out differences between "male" and "outwardly performing male" just like you can "science" and "math," but they can't be decoupled entirely without becoming gibberish (try to imagine an illogical or unmathematical science). That's why I think, when taken to ideological extremes, stretching the discussions about gender such as when people refer to "feminine penises" or say "that person who was sex-assigned male is actually a girl" makes both "feminine" and "girl" incoherent.
What do you mean by "mean anything?" Do you mean "contains no value?" I think math/logic entails science and gender (male or female outward performance as you defined it) is entailed by sex in the same way. Embedded in the definition of "outwardly performing male" is the definition of "male". You can point out differences between "male" and "outwardly performing male" just like you can "science" and "math," but they can't be decoupled entirely without becoming incoherent. That's why I think, whe
By connecting gender to bio sex the way I’m interpreting you, then you would have to reject the idea of a bio male having a feminine side and vice versa, right?
By connecting gender to bio sex the way I’m interpreting you, then you would have to reject the idea of a bio male having a feminine side and vice versa, right?
Not necessarily. Men can behave feminine and women can behave masculine (or even appear so), but I think there must be some currently undefined domain (and it could be tiny) where sex and gender are purely entangled, hence the logical incoherence that happens when one attempts to entirely decouple them.
Your theory is fascinating though. It's almost theological. Would love you to explain more about it.
Your theory is fascinating though. It's almost theological. Would love you to explain more about it.
I have hundreds of posts in the religion + spirituality subforum where I attempt to give an account of my experience pursuing the “good life”.
Basically, there is a story hidden within the darkness of each humanÂ’s inner world. Once you navigate through to the end of the story, the fog gradually lifts, and the path you walked is revealed.
You move forward in the story by identifying with the truest version of the characters in the story and de-identifying with false versions of those characters. Three of those characters are the male, the female, and the child. Identity becomes who you are.
I now realize the self is the bridge to the soul / supernatural, so self development + actualization unknowingly turned into soul actualization.
What do you mean by "mean anything?" Do you mean "contains no value?" I think math/logic entails science and gender (male or female outward performance as you defined it) is entailed by sex in the same way. Embedded in the definition of "outwardly performing male" is the definition of "male". You can point out differences between "male" and "outwardly performing male" just like you can "science" and "math," but they can't be decoupled entirely without becoming gibberish (try to imagine an illogi
I guess it just depends on how we hash out these statements because on the surface I don’t think we disagree entirely. I would think it would be pretty silly for a trans person to deny their biological sex else what exactly are they transitioning for?
I think feminine penises is different from saying a male is treated like a girl in society. That’s going to depend on the specific person and how well they pass for the most part.
Going back to the science vs math point, I think most people are going to say that though science depends on math and logic, what makes it interesting and worthwhile defining as a concept is not going go be that it depends on math in order to work.
Will I never be able to retire? Here is the actual answer regarding disagreeing with experts.
It depends on whether the disagreer is moderately knowledgeable about the subject and how much more intelligent he is in general than the expert. The biggest example where it is silly to stick to the so-called expert involves sports decision that require an ability in probability. Up until recently coaches and managers were frequently making fools of themselves when claiming their expertise in the sport they were coaching, made them more likely to be right than the statisticians that were criticizing them.
If a plumber recommends a procedure that a physicist strongly disagrees with, I'd lay six to five on the latter. If a Phd in chemistry from MIT strongly disagrees with a doctor's prescription, the doctor is probably wrong.
My own personal example came up after a doctor gave me one of the two standard prostate exams and it turned out negative. The second type of exam was scheduled the next day. I asked him how much the probability that I had prostate cancer was reduced from what it was before the first exam. He replied something like "not at all the second exam is regarding a different section of the prostate." He didn't realize that if a negative on the first exam didn't affect the overall probability it wouldn't be necessary. In this particular case his ignorance didn't matter but it certainly could in other cases.
Another example came up in an article by Harvard doctors where they incorrectly stated that a drug that passed the 5% threshold for statistical significance had a 95% chance of working better than a placebo. When I wrote to them, they admitted their error. Harvard doctors. Making an error that 100,000 college freshman wouldn't make.
Of course, with all that being said, the fact is that 99% of disagreement with experts are hogwash.
If were including doctors and sports coaches as experts then I'd like to change my posts to use a different word