authority seems reasonable as a metric if both parties can agree that the authority knows what they're talking about
and the opposite scenario -- the idea that no one should appeal to accepted science or consensus of knowledge and instead must fully understand and articulate that information themselves -- that also seems untenable and ridiculous
unless you're going out in the field performing experiments yourself, almost all information we have access to is appealing to some type of authority who gathered that data, and trusting that they did a good job at it
like I said, outside of formal debate structure they have use because even without understanding the formal idea/terminology of a fallacy, you can say things like "you've misrepresented my argument, let me try to explain it again in a way you might understand better"
and the opposite scenario -- the idea that no one should appeal to accepted science or consensus of knowledge and instead must fully understand and articulate that information themselves -- that also seems untenable and ridiculous
unless you're going out in the field performing experiments yourself, almost all information we have access to is appealing to some type of authority who gathered that data, and trusting that they did a good job at it
Quote:Outside of formal debate structure, they still have use for the exact same reasons understanding the use of tropes even if youre only consuming media and not writing it.
like I said, outside of formal debate structure they have use because even without understanding the formal idea/terminology of a fallacy, you can say things like "you've misrepresented my argument, let me try to explain it again in a way you might understand better"
1 user liked this post: