Pointing out that subject matter experts are in agreement is not the same as an ad populum argument.Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
Citing a subject matter expert is not an appeal to authority.Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations.
Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam - "We can't find any other reason for the warming so it must be due to man." The argument from ignorance.
Ignoratio elenchi - "Warming is accelerating." The red herring. Warming is not accelerating.
Argumentum ad misericordiam - "What about the cute polar bears?" The argument of inappropriate pity. The polar bears are doing just fine, thanks.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 60 years, that's what is causing the warming." The argument of false causes. The warming still might be due to something else.
Argumentum ad petitionem principii - "We program our models to show strong warming if CO2 is added to the air. Our models show strong warming." Circular argument fallacy, in which a premise is also the conclusion.
A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming." The fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits that it is fallacious to blame individual extreme weather events on global warming.
A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter - "Arctic ice is melting therefore man caused global warming is a problem." The inappropriate argument from the particular to the general.
Argumentum ad hominem - The attack on the person rather than his or her argument.
Argumentum ad baculum - "Climate skeptics should be killed/thrown in prison." The argument of force.
Pointing out that subject matter experts are in agreement is not the same as an ad populum argument.
Citing a subject matter expert is not an appeal to authority.
Citing Einstein in matters of physics is ok.
Citing Einstein in matters of politics is an appeal to authority.
Just trying to help you a little.
Also used by unskeptics. "20,000 scientists signed this petition!"Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
See also: Lord Monckton, Watts, SvensmarkArgumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.
Straw man. Nobody argues this.Argumentum ad ignorantiam - "We can't find any other reason for the warming so it must be due to man." The argument from ignorance.
That's not what red herring means.Ignoratio elenchi - "Warming is accelerating." The red herring. Warming is not accelerating.
Don't care. I don't care about polar bears, and I don't care about people who think our policies should be dictated by the effects on polar bears. My concerns for various species of plant or animal on this planet are as follows, in this order:Argumentum ad misericordiam - "What about the cute polar bears?" The argument of inappropriate pity. The polar bears are doing just fine, thanks.
Straw man.Post hoc ergo propter hoc - We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 60 years, that's what is causing the warming." The argument of false causes. The warming still might be due to something else.
Fits your definition of a red herring. The models aren't actually programmed that way.Argumentum ad petitionem principii - "We program our models to show strong warming if CO2 is added to the air. Our models show strong warming." Circular argument fallacy, in which a premise is also the conclusion.
Yes, those people are wrong. Al Gore isn't a scientist.A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming." The fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits that it is fallacious to blame individual extreme weather events on global warming.
Straw man. Nobody says the fact that ice is melting proves humans are doing it.A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter - "Arctic ice is melting therefore man caused global warming is a problem." The inappropriate argument from the particular to the general.
Says a man who routinely uses derisive terminology for global warming advocates.Argumentum ad hominem - The attack on the person rather than his or her argument.
I've heard similar from your side.Argumentum ad baculum - "Climate skeptics should be killed/thrown in prison." The argument of force.
I addressed the nature of a couple of the logical fallacies mentioned in the OP.Are there any expert weather guessers?
What record of accuracy of prediction is required to be an expert?
If two experts disagree is either no longer an expert?
I addressed the nature of a couple of the logical fallacies mentioned in the OP.
Do you object to the corrections I made?
Yes. Your use of the term expert for those that predict long term weather changes.
In your mind there are subject matter experts who are more qualified than the current batch climatologists?Yes. Your use of the term expert for those that predict long term weather changes.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations.
Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam - "We can't find any other reason for the warming so it must be due to man." The argument from ignorance.
Ignoratio elenchi - "Warming is accelerating." The red herring. Warming is not accelerating.
Argumentum ad misericordiam - "What about the cute polar bears?" The argument of inappropriate pity. The polar bears are doing just fine, thanks.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 60 years, that's what is causing the warming." The argument of false causes. The warming still might be due to something else.
Argumentum ad petitionem principii - "We program our models to show strong warming if CO2 is added to the air. Our models show strong warming." Circular argument fallacy, in which a premise is also the conclusion.
A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming." The fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits that it is fallacious to blame individual extreme weather events on global warming.
A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter - "Arctic ice is melting therefore man caused global warming is a problem." The inappropriate argument from the particular to the general.
Argumentum ad hominem - The attack on the person rather than his or her argument.
Argumentum ad baculum - "Climate skeptics should be killed/thrown in prison." The argument of force.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations.
Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations.
Argumentum ad populum - "There's a consensus on AGW." The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.
Argumentum ad verecundiam - "James Hansen says ..." The appeal to authority. Even the experts can be wrong.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam - "We can't find any other reason for the warming so it must be due to man." The argument from ignorance.
Ignoratio elenchi - "Warming is accelerating." The red herring. Warming is not accelerating.
Argumentum ad misericordiam - "What about the cute polar bears?" The argument of inappropriate pity. The polar bears are doing just fine, thanks.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 60 years, that's what is causing the warming." The argument of false causes. The warming still might be due to something else.
Argumentum ad petitionem principii - "We program our models to show strong warming if CO2 is added to the air. Our models show strong warming." Circular argument fallacy, in which a premise is also the conclusion.
A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - "Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming." The fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits that it is fallacious to blame individual extreme weather events on global warming.
A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter - "Arctic ice is melting therefore man caused global warming is a problem." The inappropriate argument from the particular to the general.
Argumentum ad hominem - "I wonder though, where do you guys get this stuff from? Do you just make it up out of thin air on a whim or do you copy and paste some right wing website?" The attack on the person rather than his or her argument.
Argumentum ad baculum - "Climate skeptics should be killed/thrown in prison." The argument of force.
The OP was missing an example for the ad hominem. True to the high standards of the environmental forum, one wasn't long in coming.I see the environmental forum is still cruising at the pinnacle of high standards.
I wonder though, where do you guys get this stuff from? Do you just make it up out of thin air on a whim or do you copy and paste some right wing website?
In your mind there are subject matter experts who are more qualified than the current batch climatologists?
Who might they be? Pundits?
The OP was missing an example for the ad hominem. True to the high standards of the environmental forum, one wasn't long in coming.
Pointing out that subject matter experts are in agreement is not the same as an ad populum argument.
Citing a subject matter expert is not an appeal to authority.
Citing Einstein in matters of physics is ok.
Citing Einstein in matters of politics is an appeal to authority.
Just trying to help you a little.
Can't argue against delusions of that magnitude.
Also used by unskeptics. "20,000 scientists signed this petition!"
Yes, they do.Straw man. Nobody argues this.
That's not what red herring means.
Don't care. I don't care about polar bears, and I don't care about people who think our policies should be dictated by the effects on polar bears. My concerns for various species of plant or animal on this planet are as follows, in this order:
1) Homo sapiens
Straw man.
Fits your definition of a red herring. The models aren't actually programmed that way.
Yes, those people are wrong. Al Gore isn't a scientist.
Straw man. Nobody says the fact that ice is melting proves humans are doing it.
Says a man who routinely uses derisive terminology for global warming advocates.
I've heard similar from your side.
Problems with your post:
1) Where did you copy and paste them from?
2) You cite a Greek philosopher but use Latin names
3) These are NOT Aristotle's fallacies from Sophistical Refutations, that list can be found here Sophistical Refutations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
maybe you shouldn't trust something from a ridiculous website like "whatsupwiththat.com"
4) Never heard of the "Argument From Fallacy" or "Fallacy Fallacy" basically standing that even if an argument contains a fallacy that it may still be true? Or that it at least is not proven to be false or truth and remains unknown?
Poor quality work Lowdown, I'm used to better spam from you.
First off, unless one is a climatologist that has done and published for peer review a significant amount of work on climate change, then it's always going to be an appeal to authority. It is the height of arrogance to assume that something has to occurred to Joe Blow on an internet forum that has not occurred to scientists that have spent a lifetime studying and working in their field. When arguing science, you always have to cite the work done by scientists in that field.
Secondly, a consensus is very important. A layman does not have the body of knowledge necessary to properly evaluate the state of existing science on AGW. Few people would argue that all they would need to successfully do a heart bypass themselves simply by reading a few blogs. Yet for some reason they think they can read a few blogs and know something that the vast majority of climate scientists don't.
I take it you have trouble seeing links in the text. You might check your browser settings.
So?
Oh, so you did see the link.
No, it's pretty much the same list with english names and stated somewhat differently, more formally. (And you cite a Greek philospher and use English names? :2razz
A person with no intellectual heft will have difficulty with condescention.
Yes, the fact that one part of an argument is false doesn't necessarily refute everything else a person says. See Bjorn Borg and his critics.
How tiresome. :roll:
An appeal to authority in and of itself is not appropriate. Only when the argument the authority makes is brought into the discussion and only if credible and only if it withstands challenge is it appropriate. I've read tens of thousands of scientific articles in my time and not once have I seen it written that something is such because so-in-so says so. People are cited in articles to point to previous work done where one may read about how it was done, what the results were, and so on. 90% of the time one could care less who they were or where they are.
Saying that there is a consensus per say does not further an argument. Only when what the consensus is, why it is what it is and so on is brought into the discussion and it withstands challenge is it appropriate.
Recall that opposition to Galileo's model of the solar system was the consensus of learned secular scientists of the day. (They didn't think that he had proven his case.)
Its not the same list, this is the list from wikipedia
Accent or emphasis
Amphibology
Equivocation
Composition
Division
Figure of speech
Material fallacies
Accident
Affirming the consequent
Converse accident
Irrelevant conclusion
Begging the question
False cause
Fallacy of many questions
that is not your list.
Also you said he created a dozen, there's actually 13 here and your list contains 11.
Yes, but if one cites peer reviewed research or studies when arguing a scientific issue, then its not sufficient simply to counter that with some guy's blog post. Personally, I see much more in the way of "appeals to authority" by skeptics than I do by those that accept AGW Theory. For example, its not at all uncommon for someone to post either a link to a published study, or an article about a published study, only for a skeptic to then to either dismiss it out of hand (as if something occurred to them that did not occur to those scientists working in that field), or to then quote a blog post by a guy like Fred Singer - which is precisely nothing but an appeal to authority on their part when faced with the results of an empirical study.
Of course pointing out a that there is a consensus is appropriate. That is like saying that its not appropriate when discussing evolution with a creationist to point out that there is a strong consensus in favor of evolution, that in fact its a foundational law of modern biology.
That is a highly flawed comparison. Galileo's work was before the scientific method, naturalism in science, and peer review. The only way it would be comparable today would be if a religion were to reject a scientific law on the basis that it goes against their religious beliefs. Much like a fundamentalist rejects modern geology or the age of the earth, or when a fundamentalist rejects AGW theory because they believe God controls the climate.
Nope. It depends entirely on what the arguments are regardless of who states them. It's only natural for lay people to side with the mainstream experts since they often can't evaluate the science for themselves, but that's not good enough when it comes to deciding what policy ought to be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?