LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Moonbeam said:
In reference to UQs rules submission
This is exactly what I meant earlier when I said that rules are political. What this rule amounts to in my opinion is a pile of he said she said links, which leads then to my link is better than yours. This rule asks us to be parrots regurgitating somebody else's poo poo. There is more than one type of mind posting here. I don't want to be confined by literalists who think that issues are Gods. To me the issue of often irrelevant, some variation on sleepwalking man. The important thing to me is the underlying psychology that persuades people of this or that truth, the what's really going on here view point. Too many people, to my way of thinking, have no idea what feeling and intuitive truths are about. For that reason they can't even get to first base in understanding the meaning of life. How can people talk to a college professor when they haven't graduated first grade. And where are the links to understanding that happens in the mind. You may want to debate a tax cut, but I may want to know why. In that why is an immense hidden world, naturally, in my opinion.
******************
I agree with your statement. To use someone else's verbage as proof of some fact that is mentioned or referenced in an article or statement is not appropriate. The Article may be the issue that the poster is commenting on and opining for or against, in which case the underlying fact is not proven just debated.
The reasons why folks behave is defined in generally accepted theory or in the case of some issues theory based on observation but, not fully accepted. We can refer to Jung, Freud and others who don't agree with each other either..
There are so many sources that can be referenced and are accepted by some part of the worlds people. So what we do say always has merit and can be debated one way or another.
A crude example may be:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to
support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to
authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert
opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or
otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An
argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on
second or third hand sources.
Examples:
(i) Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that
you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
(ii) Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight
money policy s the best cure for a recession. (Although
Galbraith is an expert, not all economists agree on this
point.)
(iii) We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald
Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five
minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a
microphone test.)
(iv) My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada
will declare war on Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay; in
fact, the reporter said that Canada would not declare war.)
(v) The Ottawa Citizen reported that sales were up 5.9
percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not n a position to
check the Citizen's sources.)
Proof:
Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the
field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the
experts in the field on this point.
References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 95, Davis: 69
In reference to UQs rules submission
This is exactly what I meant earlier when I said that rules are political. What this rule amounts to in my opinion is a pile of he said she said links, which leads then to my link is better than yours. This rule asks us to be parrots regurgitating somebody else's poo poo. There is more than one type of mind posting here. I don't want to be confined by literalists who think that issues are Gods. To me the issue of often irrelevant, some variation on sleepwalking man. The important thing to me is the underlying psychology that persuades people of this or that truth, the what's really going on here view point. Too many people, to my way of thinking, have no idea what feeling and intuitive truths are about. For that reason they can't even get to first base in understanding the meaning of life. How can people talk to a college professor when they haven't graduated first grade. And where are the links to understanding that happens in the mind. You may want to debate a tax cut, but I may want to know why. In that why is an immense hidden world, naturally, in my opinion.
******************
I agree with your statement. To use someone else's verbage as proof of some fact that is mentioned or referenced in an article or statement is not appropriate. The Article may be the issue that the poster is commenting on and opining for or against, in which case the underlying fact is not proven just debated.
The reasons why folks behave is defined in generally accepted theory or in the case of some issues theory based on observation but, not fully accepted. We can refer to Jung, Freud and others who don't agree with each other either..
There are so many sources that can be referenced and are accepted by some part of the worlds people. So what we do say always has merit and can be debated one way or another.A crude example may be:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to
support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to
authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert
opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or
otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An
argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on
second or third hand sources.
Examples:
(i) Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that
you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
(ii) Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight
money policy s the best cure for a recession. (Although
Galbraith is an expert, not all economists agree on this
point.)
(iii) We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald
Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five
minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a
microphone test.)
(iv) My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada
will declare war on Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay; in
fact, the reporter said that Canada would not declare war.)
(v) The Ottawa Citizen reported that sales were up 5.9
percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not n a position to
check the Citizen's sources.)
Proof:
Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the
field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the
experts in the field on this point.
References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 95, Davis: 69
Facebook
Twitter