What Matters and What is Nonsense

@brianlucey 

Interested to hear your thoughts on the Cranesong Solaris and what DAC do you use for monitoring?

prof
Geoff. For someone who so often mentions fallacies, you’d at least have a running start at being coherent if you actually looked them up and understood them.

(There are valid appeals to authority, and fallacious appeals to authority - neither of which I indulged in).

Go ahead: look up the formal structure of the fallacious version of appeal to authority.

Now make yourself a nice bowl of popcorn, and entertain yourself for hours trying to find that form presented in what I wrote.

I’m rooting for ya!

>>>>How do I know when you’re using an illogical argument? Whenever your mouth moves. Your statements I quoted are ALL appeals to Authority. There’s no such thing as a valid appeal to authority, silly. That’s kind of the whole point. If there was a valid appeal to Authority any yahoo on the internet could claim he wins the debate by simply declaring he was a PhD in Theoretical Physics or he has the support of a PhD or whatever. But that’s not true. It’s not logical. He cannot automatically win the debate by submitting his credentials or those of someone else. That’s why it’s an Appeal to Authority. Capish? Or by declaring he has 40 years of experience in high end systems. It sounds good but it’s an appeal to Authority. Hel-loo! In order to join in the debate, any debate, you must actually construct a technical argument.

The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form: A is an authority on a particular topic. An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority’s support is used as evidence for an argument’s conclusion.

I hate to judge before all the facts are in but you should probably march yourself right down to your local library and spend some time researching the subject. 😀 A good place to start is,

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/daniel-drasin-zen-and-the-art-of-debunkery/

By your own words you dabble in philosophy and debate. I do it professionally. 😬

Have a nice day!

I do it professionally.

LOL.

Geoff, that you are so thoroughly confused about fallacies and the nature of reasoning helps explain your web site and products.

Which is why you did not, and could not, produce what I asked:
Show the logically fallacious form of argument from authority, and show where I made such an argument.

(Hint: aside from your messing up the premises, what do you even imagine to be the *conclusion* of an argument I made?  Where is that fallacious *conclusion* found in my response to rbstehno?)

Do you want to put the bullseye shirt on, sit on the dunking chair, and try again? ;-)

If not, I’ll hand hold you through the process of pointing out why you can not do this.

I don’t mind repeating myself, prof - everything in your post to rbtstehno was fallacious. You are, for whatever set of reasons, not exactly clued in to the whole illogical argument thing. You obviously think you are. But hey, it makes for interesting discussion. I dunno why you would attack me or my web site. For one thing that’s another fallacious argument, argumentum ad hominem. “God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason.” - Judge Judy

*dunk! Splash!* . (Here’s a towel...)

geoff,

Simply repeating "yes you ARE being fallacious!"....is not an argument establishing that conclusion.

Your objections could be interesting if you at least showed a grasp of the distinction between repeating assertions (as you keep doing) and actually making an argument. That’s why I tried to get you to actually produce an argument - even as a starting point what you think to be MY argument - if you are actually going to call it fallacious.

If you are attacking a purported argument as fallacious, the first order of business is to actually point to the author’s premises and his CONCLUSION < --you know, the part you are supposed to show to be fallacious!

Yet you’ve been asked twice to do so, and to point directly to the CONCLUSION you claim I argued for, and why it is fallacious. That’s why I’ve said, please scour what I answered and try to find that CONCLUSION you are objecting to.

Kinda basic stuff that seems to escape your notice. You don’t even seem to recognize the relevance of pointing to an arguments conclusion, when arguing it is fallacious. Let alone being able to show it is in fact the conclusion argued for!

So, I’ll leave you spinning your wheels I guess.

But if you want to try again:

What do you take to be the argument I made, including it’s CONCLUSION?

(Hints: Did I argue there was no sonic difference in the Home depot/synergistic research cable comparison raised by rbstehno? Of course not. I never compared those items. Did I argue for the conclusion no sonic differences exist between cables? Nope: I explicitly said I was not making any such claim. So what in the world do you think I was arguing for? What conclusion is haunting your imagination that you could show I *actually* made?)

(And, again, you mistakenly point to yet another form of argument I did not in fact make - argumentum ad hominem, but it seems we have to deal with one fallacy at a time here).