Jayson_Virissimo comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong

97 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 March 2010 11:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1329)
Tags: skepticism contrarianism

Comments (1329)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 22 January 2012 07:39:03AM *  0 points [-]

Note: This argument is valid in the sense I am using the term.

If your use of the term valid is such that arguments from authority are (necessarily) invalid then your use of the term is simply wrong. The very wikipedia link that you provide explains it as one of the many forms of potentially valid argument that is often used fallaciously. The following is an example of a valid argument form:

  • Person X has reputation for being an expert on Y.
  • Things said about Y by a person who has a reputation for being an expert on Y are likely to be correct.
  • Person X said Z about Y.
  • Z is likely to be correct.

If you wish to trace the error in conclusion back to a specific false premise then it may be the (false) assumption "All valid arguments are deductive arguments".

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 22 January 2012 08:43:49AM *  0 points [-]

If your use of the term valid is such that arguments from authority are (necessarily) invalid then your use of the term is simply wrong. The very wikipedia link that you provide explains it as one of the many forms of potentially valid argument that is often used fallaciously.

The link I provided (here) does not contain the string "valid" as of 01:43 1/22/2012 Phoenix, Arizona time. What is does say is:

Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.

Inductively Strong != Valid

Comment author: wedrifid 22 January 2012 09:00:01AM 0 points [-]

The link I provided (here) does not contain the string "valid" as of 01:43 1/22/2012 Phoenix, Arizona time.

That is more than a tad disingenuous. You seem to be trying to claim that because the string 'valid' is not present in the text the clear meaning of the text cannot be that arguments from authority can be valid. I hope you agree that this sounds silly if made explicit. Things that are present in article are the phrase 'statistical syllogism' and the inclusion of "Fallacious appeals to authority" as a whole seperate subsection. That section opens by explaining:

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.

... This is an explanation of how fallacious arguments from authority differ from valid ones.

What is does say is:

Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.

Yes, this is exactly my position.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit