Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[Graystone]

That presumes that you read and understood what I wrote. However, on multiple responses that's clearly not been the case. Either you don't understand (and I give you more credit than that) or you are deliberately misinterpreting (AKA Cathy Newman "So your Saying...").

Here's an idea - if you want the rational discourse you so desperately claim to want - go back to my last post where I responded to you properly and rebut what I actually wrote (not what you wished me to write) - then we can go from there.

Otherwise - my toys remain happily in my Cot and your arguments remain entirely fallacious.

Or you are being ambiguous, in all three of those cases, the rational response is to correct the interpretation. You have ample chance to learn to do that. Even if we take one example to start you off:

They are very clear on the interpretation - an Authority on a subject can be used. It's why we allow expert testimony in our Legal system. To try and re-interpret it as anything else is simply you doing Mental backflips.

The use in science part does make it clear on the interpretation, and it remains inconsistent with yours. An expert witness makes their case directly to the courts, and can be argued against by other expert witnesses too. So your interpretation of that part is erroneous as well.

To which I properly rebutted what you wrote, the interpretation is clearly not in your favor, as I illustrated by referring to the scientific example on the page you were interpreting from; where they clearly specify that an Authority on the subject cannot be used. Likewise I pointed out that expert testimony is allowed in the legal system because it (the content of it) can be argued against. Should I further qualify that by saying that is inconsistent with an Argument From Authority where the content cannot be argued against?

[TheDemonLord]

Or you are being ambiguous, in all three of those cases, the rational response is to correct the interpretation. You have ample chance to learn to do that. Even if we take one example to start you off:

Sure, but you didn't try to get a correct interpretation - you went off constructing an army of Strawmen.

To which I properly rebutted what you wrote, the interpretation is clearly not in your favor, as I illustrated by referring to the scientific example on the page you were interpreting from;

1: This is not a Scientific matter (I already pointed this out), so a strict adherence to the Scientific method isn't appropriate.
2: The modifier does not invalidate the definition.

It's the latter part where you are being deliberately disingenuous - I've given you, from multiple sources, the definition of the fallacy - all of which point out that an expert in the field can be cited as a valid inductive argument. That you continue to ignore this reality is an Argument by Pigheadedness.

where they clearly specify that an Authority on the subject cannot be used. Likewise I pointed out that expert testimony is allowed in the legal system because it (the content of it) can be argued against. Should I further qualify that by saying that is inconsistent with an Argument From Authority where the content cannot be argued against?

You can argue against what Don Brash has said about the NZ Economy - but you'd need to provide some form of evidence that what he said was incorrect. Your original article linked back to a white paper by the Bank of England (which is certainly a respectable financial institution) which argued that since money that was lent out by banks is often deposited back into accounts that are also owned by the bank, that the traditional fractional reserve model wasn't entirely accurate.

That white paper made no mention of New Zealand and it didn't invalidate the FRB Model - merely modified it, because with multiple banking institutions - there is not perfect parity between that which is lent out and that which is deposited - which means that the banks are still operating with a fraction of the reserves that they require - ergo your original article NEVER disproved what Don Brash was saying.

So, at the moment - we have Don Brash (with his PHD in economics, decades of experience in the Financial industry and 14 years experience as the Governor of the RBNZ) who has accurately described the NZ Banking system (because we can verify that what he said was correct - both from the mission statement on the RBNZ's website and multiple other sources) - and then we have you and a piss weak article that doesn't actually prove what you claim it does.

The TL;DR of all of this is - We use the Fractional Reserve Banking system, you are objectively wrong on this point and you've provided XERO evidence that we don't (Pun fully intended).

There's then a follow up argument that is an inductive argument: Since you don't know how the NZ Economy works - and I clearly have a better understanding (since myself and Don Brash agree on the basic financial model that NZ operates under) - any subsequent claims where it boils down to my word (and interpretation) vs yours, I've got the stronger case.

[Graystone]

Sure, but you didn't try to get a correct interpretation - you went off constructing an army of Strawmen.





1: This is not a Scientific matter (I already pointed this out), so a strict adherence to the Scientific method isn't appropriate.
2: The modifier does not invalidate the definition.

It's the latter part where you are being deliberately disingenuous - I've given you, from multiple sources, the definition of the fallacy - all of which point out that an expert in the field can be cited as a valid inductive argument. That you continue to ignore this reality is an Argument by Pigheadedness.



You can argue against what Don Brash has said about the NZ Economy - but you'd need to provide some form of evidence that what he said was incorrect. Your original article linked back to a white paper by the Bank of England (which is certainly a respectable financial institution) which argued that since money that was lent out by banks is often deposited back into accounts that are also owned by the bank, that the traditional fractional reserve model wasn't entirely accurate.

That white paper made no mention of New Zealand and it didn't invalidate the FRB Model - merely modified it, because with multiple banking institutions - there is not perfect parity between that which is lent out and that which is deposited - which means that the banks are still operating with a fraction of the reserves that they require - ergo your original article NEVER disproved what Don Brash was saying.

So, at the moment - we have Don Brash (with his PHD in economics, decades of experience in the Financial industry and 14 years experience as the Governor of the RBNZ) who has accurately described the NZ Banking system (because we can verify that what he said was correct - both from the mission statement on the RBNZ's website and multiple other sources) - and then we have you and a piss weak article that doesn't actually prove what you claim it does.

The TL;DR of all of this is - We use the Fractional Reserve Banking system, you are objectively wrong on this point and you've provided XERO evidence that we don't (Pun fully intended).

There's then a follow up argument that is an inductive argument: Since you don't know how the NZ Economy works - and I clearly have a better understanding (since myself and Don Brash agree on the basic financial model that NZ operates under) - any subsequent claims where it boils down to my word (and interpretation) vs yours, I've got the stronger case.

It is not a scientific matter, but the interpretation you make of the fallacy must cover scientific matters as well. Otherwise you have multiple interpretations of the same fallacy, but just for different fields, which I have certainly not seen justified anywhere as part of how fallacies work, have you?

Some sources allow the possibility they can be used as an inductive argument (which you should note, is never to be considered conclusive), only if all parties agree on the validity of considering them to be an expert on the required matter. So when I disagree on validity of your expert, seeking to push through his opinion as correct both invalidates the inductive nature of the argument, and constitutes an argument from authority fallacy.

There is no point gish galloping on to an example and plethora of links etc until we can agree on what an argument on authority is.

If we take "argument from authority fallacy" as the search term, wiki being the second one as we are covering. The first is:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...l-to-Authority

Which is quite clear that authorities should only ever be deffered to, rather than appealed to.

And the third is:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Which again, makes it quite simple, and mentions nothing about an exclusion for a legit authority; quite the opposite in fact when you read the example.

So at best, you're 1/3, but given the rather questionable interpretations of the plain english written in the wiki, it has to be 0 for 3... If you wish to supply me these other 'multiple sources' (which I dispute were ever supplied as you describe them) I'll be happy to read them, just start with your best three and we can go from there

[TheDemonLord]

It is not a scientific matter, but the interpretation you make of the fallacy must cover scientific matters as well. Otherwise you have multiple interpretations of the same fallacy, but just for different fields, which I have certainly not seen justified anywhere as part of how fallacies work, have you?

Some sources allow the possibility they can be used as an inductive argument (which you should note, is never to be considered conclusive), only if all parties agree on the validity of considering them to be an expert on the required matter. So when I disagree on validity of your expert, seeking to push through his opinion as correct both invalidates the inductive nature of the argument, and constitutes an argument from authority fallacy.

There is no point gish galloping on to an example and plethora of links etc until we can agree on what an argument on authority is.

If we take "argument from authority fallacy" as the search term, wiki being the second one as we are covering. The first is:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...l-to-Authority

Which is quite clear that authorities should only ever be deffered to, rather than appealed to.

And the third is:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Which again, makes it quite simple, and mentions nothing about an exclusion for a legit authority; quite the opposite in fact when you read the example.

So at best, you're 1/3, but given the rather questionable interpretations of the plain english written in the wiki, it has to be 0 for 3... If you wish to supply me these other 'multiple sources' (which I dispute were ever supplied as you describe them) I'll be happy to read them, just start with your best three and we can go from there

Now, go read your link, the section titled "Exceptions". Which clearly describes what I've been trying to impress upon you (and thus far you've been denying).

As for your disagreement about the nature of Don Brash's expertise, That's the Willed Ignorance Fallacy - in this instance, it is sufficient that he is recognized by his Peers as an authority.

You are no different than the New Earth creationist stating "Well, I don't think Dawkins knows what he's talking about" and then using that as the basis of ignoring everything that follows.

Edit - as for your last link (which is a dictionary entry) that would be the Appeal to Definition fallacy:

"The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y.

Therefore, Y must not be part of X."

Or in your case: "Wiktionary mentions nothing about an exclusion for a legit authority, therefore there are no exclusions"

[Graystone]

Now, go read your link, the section titled "Exceptions". Which clearly describes what I've been trying to impress upon you (and thus far you've been denying).

As for your disagreement about the nature of Don Brash's expertise, That's the Willed Ignorance Fallacy - in this instance, it is sufficient that he is recognized by his Peers as an authority.

You are no different than the New Earth creationist stating "Well, I don't think Dawkins knows what he's talking about" and then using that as the basis of ignoring everything that follows.

Edit - as for your last link (which is a dictionary entry) that would be the Appeal to Definition fallacy:

"The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y.

Therefore, Y must not be part of X."

Or in your case: "Wiktionary mentions nothing about an exclusion for a legit authority, therefore there are no exclusions"

The exception is deferring to an authority, as I mentioned in my post. And from that exception "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally" which is appealing to an authority by saying things like, this guy is an expert so what he says is correct, still fits the argument from authority fallacy.

The second definition was supplied to show that I'm not just 'appealing' to one or two definitions, none of the ones we have covered show the exception as you are trying to use it. I'll re-state the main point I made on the wiki article as you missed that it would seem; the interpretation you make of the fallacy must cover scientific matters as well. Otherwise you have multiple interpretations of the same fallacy, but just for different fields, which I have certainly not seen justified anywhere as part of how fallacies work, have you?

[TheDemonLord]

The exception is deferring to an authority, as I mentioned in my post. And from that exception "There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally" which is appealing to an authority by saying things like, this guy is an expert so what he says is correct, still fits the argument from authority fallacy.

Wait a minute....

There is no exception to it.

So, which is it? Or is it that you've been wrong this whole time and are desperately scrabbling to try and mitigate your error?

The second definition was supplied to show that I'm not just 'appealing' to one or two definitions, none of the ones we have covered show the exception as you are trying to use it. I'll re-state the main point I made on the wiki article as you missed that it would seem; the interpretation you make of the fallacy must cover scientific matters as well. Otherwise you have multiple interpretations of the same fallacy, but just for different fields, which I have certainly not seen justified anywhere as part of how fallacies work, have you?

Now you are just flip-flopping, let me be clear - in some fields a strict adherence to the Scientific method is entirely appropriate, in other fields, it is not appropriate. Since those fields where a scientific method isn't appropriate, the Fallacy (and it's exception) is transformed by the levels of proof within the field. For example - a scientific method is inappropriate for Theological studies.

You're just trying to re-interpret your failed understanding and shoe-horn it into a scenario where you can claim that you were right all along....

And I'm having none of it.

[Laava]

Pretty sure this will fit in nicely with the conversations that go on in here...

[Graystone]

Wait a minute....



So, which is it? Or is it that you've been wrong this whole time and are desperately scrabbling to try and mitigate your error?



Now you are just flip-flopping, let me be clear - in some fields a strict adherence to the Scientific method is entirely appropriate, in other fields, it is not appropriate. Since those fields where a scientific method isn't appropriate, the Fallacy (and it's exception) is transformed by the levels of proof within the field. For example - a scientific method is inappropriate for Theological studies.

You're just trying to re-interpret your failed understanding and shoe-horn it into a scenario where you can claim that you were right all along....

And I'm having none of it.

Sorry, I should have used air quote for the 'exception' and it's not an exception for the appeal part of it anyway. Do you understand the difference? That deferring to an authority is not the same as appealing to one. Ie, you defer to one on a point cause neither party cares to discuss the details, but when one party would like to discuss the details, you cannot appeal to an authority to avoid a logical discussion around said point.

So, your interpretation does require a different (and subjective) meaning be applied based on what field is being discussed? Is there any evidence this is common or even acceptable?

Have you got any sources clearing showing the use as you describe it, without reading so much into to sub-clauses etc that it becomes inconsistent within the source?

There's no need to become emotional or egotistical, let's just keep the toys in the cot, and continue a rational discussion on this one, simple, point.

[TheDemonLord]

Sorry, I should have used air quote for the 'exception' and it's not an exception for the appeal part of it anyway

Hark! Thy hills resoundeth with the sound of furious backpeddling...

Do you understand the difference? That deferring to an authority is not the same as appealing to one. Ie, you defer to one on a point cause neither party cares to discuss the details, but when one party would like to discuss the details, you cannot appeal to an authority to avoid a logical discussion around said point.

Clearly I understand better than you - since you've spent half this thread and the other thread proclaiming with wild abandon that there was no exceptions, even when quoting from a source with a big ol' chunk o' text under the title "Exceptions".

But back to the original point - you never proved that we don't use a FRBS, I've pointed to the presence of a Reserve bank (bit of a give away), I've referred to multiple references to the NZ economy as "a FRBS", I've pointed to the Reserve bank website which states that it sets a limit as to what the banks must have on hand (which means it's a fraction - less than 1, greater than 0), and from your own source - you've got Billy-no-economics pointing to a white paper from the Bank of England, and using that as a basis to proclaim (absent ANY evidence - which is ironic as fuck given your protestations) that we don't use the FRBS, whereas reading the white paper in detail shows that we still, in fact, use a FRBS. Then to top all that off, you've got Don Brash describing the NZ financial system.

Given the level of evidence you submitted and the mountain that you are dismissing - I'm deferring to Don Brash, from your article as yet another data point to prove that we use that system.

So, your interpretation does require a different (and subjective) meaning be applied based on what field is being discussed? Is there any evidence this is common or even acceptable?

Not at all - how on earth did you interpret what I said in that way? The standards of proof are predefined in the field of reference. Take for example - Theology - the Scientific method isn't applicable - so does that mean that in a theological debate, no one can commit that fallacy? Because that's the extension of the drivel you are spouting...

Have you got any sources clearing showing the use as you describe it, without reading so much into to sub-clauses etc that it becomes inconsistent within the source?

Look at the source you posted - it gives a context (the Tour guide example) where a strict adherence the scientific method would be inappropriate. Just like above.

There's no need to become emotional or egotistical, let's just keep the toys in the cot, and continue a rational discussion on this one, simple, point.

When you start being rational and concede that which by your own sources, you are objectively wrong on - then sure, but you are trying to re-invent the wheel to avoid conceding that both you are wrong on the usage of the fallacy and that you are wrong about the original statement.

[Graystone]

Hark! Thy hills resoundeth with the sound of furious backpeddling...



Clearly I understand better than you - since you've spent half this thread and the other thread proclaiming with wild abandon that there was no exceptions, even when quoting from a source with a big ol' chunk o' text under the title "Exceptions".

But back to the original point - you never proved that we don't use a FRBS, I've pointed to the presence of a Reserve bank (bit of a give away), I've referred to multiple references to the NZ economy as "a FRBS", I've pointed to the Reserve bank website which states that it sets a limit as to what the banks must have on hand (which means it's a fraction - less than 1, greater than 0), and from your own source - you've got Billy-no-economics pointing to a white paper from the Bank of England, and using that as a basis to proclaim (absent ANY evidence - which is ironic as fuck given your protestations) that we don't use the FRBS, whereas reading the white paper in detail shows that we still, in fact, use a FRBS. Then to top all that off, you've got Don Brash describing the NZ financial system.

Given the level of evidence you submitted and the mountain that you are dismissing - I'm deferring to Don Brash, from your article as yet another data point to prove that we use that system.



Not at all - how on earth did you interpret what I said in that way? The standards of proof are predefined in the field of reference. Take for example - Theology - the Scientific method isn't applicable - so does that mean that in a theological debate, no one can commit that fallacy? Because that's the extension of the drivel you are spouting...



Look at the source you posted - it gives a context (the Tour guide example) where a strict adherence the scientific method would be inappropriate. Just like above.



When you start being rational and concede that which by your own sources, you are objectively wrong on - then sure, but you are trying to re-invent the wheel to avoid conceding that both you are wrong on the usage of the fallacy and that you are wrong about the original statement.

If you are looking to prove a point, there are no exceptions. As deferring to an authority is never conclusive, and if said authority is questioned, the exception is nullified anyway. In either case, it would be a surely be a fallacy to assume since one small part of my argument was open to interpretation the whole of it must be wrong... perhaps think on that before getting too egotistical.

What about the exemption though, does it apply for theology as well? how about economics? Of course people can commit the fallacy in theology, or in any debate; that is why my interpretation of it works. You're poking holes in your own interpretation since that is the one dependent on the field in question.

The tour guide is not in the context of argumentation, ie, it is not being appealed to so obviously the fallacy doesn't apply.

You have yet to show any objective wrongness from my own sources. At best they can also be interpreted (with some mental gymnastics) to support your interpretation of it, but none of them make that interpretation clear so I question if you have any other sources that do...

[TheDemonLord]

If you are looking to prove a point, there are no exceptions.

So, all the descriptions of the Fallacy are wrong and only Graystone really knows how it works...

As deferring to an authority is never conclusive, and if said authority is questioned, the exception is nullified anyway. In either case, it would be a surely be a fallacy to assume since one small part of my argument was open to interpretation the whole of it must be wrong... perhaps think on that before getting too egotistical.

My point on this issue was simply "You don't know what you are talking about" - as evidenced by your continued misuse of the fallacy, contradiction of your own sources refusal to accept reality.

I did link that back to Economics, more as a pointed jab at you, as opposed to formal argument.

What about the exemption though, does it apply for theology as well? how about economics? Of course people can commit the fallacy in theology, or in any debate; that is why my interpretation of it works. You're poking holes in your own interpretation since that is the one dependent on the field in question.

...

Do you even read what I wrote?

Take for example - Theology - the Scientific method isn't applicable - so does that mean that in a theological debate, no one can commit that fallacy?

Which is clearly a rhetorical question, ridiculing your position, you've in effect proved my point. People can commit the fallacy in Theology which is a realm where the scientific method isn't applicable. Therefore - your interpretation of the Fallacy and it's exception in terms of ONLY the scientific standard of proof is clearly incorrect, which therefore makes my interpretation correct.

Congrats - you've disproved your own point and proved mine...

The tour guide is not in the context of argumentation, ie, it is not being appealed to so obviously the fallacy doesn't apply.

Then why is it given in an example, in a description of the Fallacy that you yourself cited?

You have yet to show any objective wrongness from my own sources. At best they can also be interpreted (with some mental gymnastics) to support your interpretation of it, but none of them make that interpretation clear so I question if you have any other sources that do...

See above - where you denied (again) that there is no exception to the fallacy, whilst there clearly is an exception that is described in the description of the fallacy.

The only Mental Gymnastics are to be found there.

[Graystone]

So, all the descriptions of the Fallacy are wrong and only Graystone really knows how it works...



My point on this issue was simply "You don't know what you are talking about" - as evidenced by your continued misuse of the fallacy, contradiction of your own sources refusal to accept reality.

I did link that back to Economics, more as a pointed jab at you, as opposed to formal argument.



...

Do you even read what I wrote?



Which is clearly a rhetorical question, ridiculing your position, you've in effect proved my point. People can commit the fallacy in Theology which is a realm where the scientific method isn't applicable. Therefore - your interpretation of the Fallacy and it's exception in terms of ONLY the scientific standard of proof is clearly incorrect, which therefore makes my interpretation correct.

Congrats - you've disproved your own point and proved mine...



Then why is it given in an example, in a description of the Fallacy that you yourself cited?



See above - where you denied (again) that there is no exception to the fallacy, whilst there clearly is an exception that is described in the description of the fallacy.

The only Mental Gymnastics are to be found there.

All the 'exceptions' show deferral/inductive arguments which as we know, cannot be used to prove a point. Thus my statement that if you wish to prove a point, there are no exceptions.

It was not clearly a rhetorical question imo, hence why I asked you to clarify, there is no need to get angry when asked to clarify your point. My interpretation is global, in any field, an argument from authority is insufficient and fallacious, including theology. I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion I need to interpret it differently based on the field as you do. The wiki article you linked to clearly agrees with my interpretation at least for science, so you clearly disagree with the global nature of it as you put forward an interpretation and exemptions which violate Sagan's quote from the wiki "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

I'm really struggling to see how you could possibly misinterpret my points, and the articles on this fallacy, to quite this extent. Are you overstressed at work or home or something? even when showing your sexism around Jacinda it was an internally consistent logic built around a core of delusion, the stuff this week has instead just been way out in the weeds and all over the place...

[Graystone]

Then why is it given in an example, in a description of the Fallacy that you yourself cited?

Forgot this one, quoting the paragraph in full

The appeal to authority is more about claims that require evidence than about facts. For example, if your tour guide told you that Vatican City was founded February 11, 1929, and you accept that information as true, you are not committing a fallacy (because it is not in the context of argumentation) nor are you being unreasonable.

We can conclude 100% that the meaning of this is to show:
a) it is not commiting the fallacy
b) because it is not in the context of argumentation
Surely you can also draw such conclusions when they are written right there in plain english? I'm not sure what else you are trying to read into it?

[Katman]

Are you two trying to out-mental disorder each other?

[husaberg]

Are you two trying to out-mental disorder each other?

Don't worry you are out of their league
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...iracy-theories
https://www.geek.com/science/new-stu...order-1720483/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...n-seeking.html