= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Intelligence enhancement as existential risk mitigation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (198)
There's an argument from authority that's a fallacy, and one that's not.
Arguments of the form, "S is an authority on X and says p, so we have reason to think that p" can be valid (possibly missing some easy steps) but might be unsound.
Arguments of the form "S is an authority on X and says p, therefore p" are just plainly invalid.
There is no contradiction here.
agreed, still looking for the link.